God, Free Will & Contingency

[AbdulRahman]

All actual evidence favors free will. There is no actual evidence for determinism as of yet.

That appears to be true when you look at the evolution of individual biological species dear Fathom., But when you look at over all evolution on the planet with that assumption that all species evolved through a single DNA genome or use same principles of genomic replication., Then evolution of higher intelligent species like human being seem to have some deterministic principles with-in evolutionary biological processes. Otherwise one should answer the question why other species are NOT as intelligent as Human beings?? after all everything came out of same/similar biological principles..

Off course there are exceptions to that rule for e.g. my good friend AbdulRahman

But what is your opinion on that dear Fathom? It is true if we look at just material science the rules of the game appears to be completely deterministic. In other words they started with that, until the end that composition will be there. Example being the transmutation of one element to other element is simply not possible and all that is there in the universe with reference to elemental composition was/is already there to start with.

It doesn't have to be deterministic. Even if it is not deterministic even then oen has to show that we control the undeterministic part of the nature, like HUP to show that we have free will.

[AbdulRahman]

Charles,

I have said many time that you are one of the very few reasonable people at FFI. I agree with you on many things but not on few things. I can live with that.
Please read the following, think, and please, please be honest and magnanimous before responding.
1) In your very first post on this topic you have said, that you are leaning toward No Free Will but would prefer to stay as agnostic for now.
2. You also have said, all the evidence is showing up against Free Will.
3. I will add, the most powerful reason behind the conclusion for “No Free Will” is not based on the direct evidence or empirical but logical as in Mathematics.
4. I will add, even if one, by meditation, fully integrates his/her conscious and subconscious mind the question of Free Will stays. Still there is no free will because no part of our subconscious or conscious mind is independent of laws of nature. There still going to be cause and effect in our brain. And we do not control the part that is not based on cause and effect as in HUP.

Now the real kicker.
Ask yourself, is it something in you telling you not to give up on Free Will?
Is that a wish? Is that a desire? Is that a fantasy?
Is the urge for Free Will based on reason?
Or is it directly coming from the limbic system?

As you know in our early phase of evolution major part of our brain works on limbic system. At the later phases our conscious and subconscious mind evolved. In an evolved system still thought will bubble up from the limbic system but that need to be arrested by the frontal lobe logical circuitry and test it further for its validity.
So, where your desire for Free Will (for theist the desire for creator) is coming from?

After understanding and digesting that there is no Free Will, I wanted to discuss even more deeper topics of “Crime and Punishment”. Implications of No Free Will in the concept of right and wrong.
But alas, we are stuck on Free Will.

[BBG]

Mohammad Bin Lying is running from the following question.
Following question produces extreme CD in his mind.
MBL, please answer the question.

In your opinion did anyone ever had any free will at all?
a) Yes
b) No
c) inconclusive, I do not know.

Yes, and I said this before you crossed eyed moron. Now go back and read it and realize what a moron you are. I even said that this could possibly be said about Buddha, moron. Now quit wasting everybody's time, troll, and read what is typed to you. Now go cure the dissonance of your AC/DC preferences that your outlet is causing you.

I don't think Buddha can be given as an example because it were the sufferings of a lame man, an old man and a dead person which took him to the path which he later took. It could be a sense of guilt that there was so much suffering outside while he himself lived in all the comforts in the palace. As Skynightblaze said earlier in the example of someone giving money to a beggar, by finding a path to overcome those sufferings and preaching others about that path, he might have been trying to overcome his own feeling of uncomfort. He might not have done anything for his material gain but for mental gain.

[skynightblaze]

Anyway, just my two cents. I know you're better than me and above any conversation with me, so I do not expect any reply, nor would I even prefer one.

Bye.

Well he still hasnt used his trump card! Beware of him . The last argument could be but the book(quran) says it that we have free will . Game over you would be trapped!

[The Cat]

Free Will is not merrily a thought, another false premise from you. It is conscience in action, the WILL to act sometimes despite the odds (risking your life to save another);

Doesn't that all stem from a thought first? What causes the action? Isn't there still a hidden benefit in saving someone else's life? Why would you do it?? Just because it's the "right" thing to do?? Is that what you tell yourself?? Or are you actually living up to an ideal that you have created for yourself? Is saving someone else a selfless action?

Free Will is a spontaneous act. When jumping into water to save someone, you don't think: You jump and/or call for help. You ACT.

Free Will escapes time process and we must differentiate it from the vast field of OPTIONS. It's an idea in motion. According to Aristotle on will, it should be define as a mixture of two notions: Spontaneous desire and intentionality. So the 'Free' in Free Will must be related to spontaneity and Will to intention. In short, Free Will modifies a determined state through originality.

it is intentionality using sapience and cognition. Free Will is also NOT to act if wisdom indicates so.

Doesn't ones wisdom (or perceived wisdom) merely come from their experiences (environment) and their mental abilities and/or genetic predispositions?

That wisdom is then part of the OPTIONS (experiences, environment, etc). There's no Free Will involved in the world of options or contingency. It stems from an -original- action once the options (static) are left over in the course of acting.

Free Will is instantaneous. It can only exist in the present, not in the past-future equation. That's the main reason why we do not understand Free Will, as we insert it within a continuum while it is rather an originality stemming out of this continuum (options, contingency). It's an impulse, instinct of the instant. A flash within discernment (for humans). In this creative moment, time is not.

It's the will to be free or freed from determinism as in spirituality through meditation, which means measurement (toward objectivity by looking at subjectivity).

Is that free will, or one acting in what they believe to be their self interest as anyone would expect? Is it objective to want to be free of determinism or subjective? Is that an "objective" desire??? Can desire itself ever be "objective"??

You should know better about 'desire'. Trying to escape them is yet another one. Now, self-interest is also a form of options or contingency, so part of a true meditation. True mystics aren't renouncing the world, another egotistic vanity. If you understand Jesus or de Mello, you find out that mysticism is to drop the illusions which crucify your soul, and that awareness is simply to marvel at the incessant flowing of creativity, to become creation yourself. As such many artists are much more mystics than monks: ''Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy'' (L. Beethoven). What's true from this is that there's no higher revelation than creativity whatever the form it takes, life being its enacted principle. True mystics as well as exceptional artists are simply plugged into it... And they look at us as being self-crucified to determinism.

It is emergence as creation... and all the artists in the world, past and present, are using Free Will to paint, write a poem, a play, or a symphony. To sculpt and build structures. Searchers and scientists are using Free Will to discover and disclose. Look at our magnificent Free Will, loud and clear:

Some would say they create nothing and merely remold the existing. Perhaps creation is a misleading word and "reorganization" would be more appropriate. I remember in Art school where we basically had to realize that every creative idea is actually stolen from something prior that the person saw to some extent, whether one is aware of that or not. I'm not sure if there really is such a thing as a totally "new" idea. although it can certainly seem that way. Is there really "creativity"? I'm told I'm creative, but I don't see it that way.

That's the whole process of enlightenment: from a state of subordination to a state of utter realization, that is to be creativity yourself. That's why kids have more Free Will (spontaneity) than we do, they're not yet drowned in patterns and labels, jailed into themselves.

Anyway, just my two cents. I know you're better than me and above any conversation with me, so I do not expect any reply, nor would I even prefer one.
Bye.

I have no time for this kind of triviality. In this case though, since I think that my understanding of Free Will is pretty original (I haven't seen it anywhere yet) well it worth the time. Free Will is an act of creativity emerging from determined options yet, being actual, apart from them, so not in the past-future equation, but a spontaneous here and now. It is an impulse escaping contingency -for an instant- in which creation emerge.

We don't understand Free Will because it escapes the time equation. But, according to the last mathematical theorems, Free Will might pretty well be the one determining factor of all physical laws of the universe, namely the Kochen-Specker Theorem and its subsequent Free Will Theorem (Conway-Kochen), themselves complementing Bell's Theorem, which will follow up...

[BBG]

Anyway, just my two cents. I know you're better than me and above any conversation with me, so I do not expect any reply, nor would I even prefer one.

Bye.

Well he still hasnt used his trump card! Beware of him . The last argument could be but the book(quran) says it that we have free will . Game over you would be trapped!

The Cat is not a muslim.

[The Cat]

... there is NOT one single determinism in causality, but many different ones (biological, psychological, physical) that are interacting. None of them is outruling the others, they bounce into one another and so Free Will is the one guiding light in all those interactions. Let's say I'm hungry but I have to eat later because of some obligations. Two contrary determinisms are pushing and I must choose, so will I. Free Will is the option between many determining aspects. It's emergence... in the pinball universe of Quantum physic.

If as you say Free will is the option between many determining aspects, in the end, isn't it still deteminsim? What you call free will is then not free will actually because whatever contrary determinism one may choose, it will still be determinism. I think AbdulRahman also talked about some wiggle room given by HUP.

Free Will as emergence is spontaneous, an original phenomena stemming out from many convergent facts. Such emergences range from the Big Bang up to hurricanes, and going throughout evolution. They are creatives and perpetually reshaping the old patterns. So the laws of Nature constantly must adapt themselves: they are not so much presiding as adjusting to the constant interactions created by Free Will, as manifest in evolution! Nature is in a constant state of re-creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Emergent structures are patterns not created by a single event or rule. Nothing commands the system to form a pattern. Instead, the interaction of each part with its immediate surroundings causes a complex chain of processes leading to some order. One might conclude that emergent structures are more than the sum of their parts because the emergent order will not arise if the various parts are simply coexisting; the interaction of these parts is central. Emergent structures can be found in many natural phenomena, from the physical to the biological domain.

The HUP wiggle room has been disproved (as well as the EPR locality theory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg ... _principle
Another common misconception is that the energy-time uncertainty principle says that the conservation of energy can be temporarily violated – energy can be "borrowed" from the Universe as long as it is "returned" within a short amount of time. Although this agrees with the spirit of relativistic quantum mechanics, it is based on the false axiom that the energy of the Universe is an exactly known parameter at all times. More accurately, when events transpire at shorter time intervals, there is a greater uncertainty in the energy of these events. Therefore it is not that the conservation of energy is violated when quantum field theory uses temporary electron-positron pairs in its calculations, but that the energy of quantum systems is not known with enough precision to limit their behavior to a single, simple history. Thus the influence of all histories must be incorporated into quantum calculations, including those with much greater or much less energy than the mean of the measured/calculated energy distribution.

See also the Free Will theorem (2006) based on Kochen-Specker Theorem and Bell's. Since according to them, Free Will is also the determining factor among particles then it's the one thing ordering the laws of Nature, simply reacting or adapting to emergences, or evolution. The Big bang itself being such an emergence, out of the particle's Free Will. Same is found throughout the evolution process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen-Specker_theorem (excerpt)

The theorem proves that there is a contradiction between two basic assumptions of hidden variable theories intended to reproduce the results of quantum mechanics: that all hidden variables corresponding to quantum mechanical observables have definite values at any given time, and that the values of those variables are intrinsic and independent of the device used to measure them. The contradiction is generated by the fact that quantum mechanical observables need not be commutative, making it impossible to embed the algebra of these observables in a commutative algebra, by assumption representing the classical structure of the hidden variables theory.

The Kochen-Specker proof demonstrates the impossibility of Einstein's assumption, made in the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper (EPR theory of locality), that quantum mechanical observables represent `elements of physical reality'. More generally does the theorem exclude hidden variable theories requiring elements of physical reality to be noncontextual (i.e. independent of the measurement arrangement). (....) Considerably simpler proofs than the Kochen-Specker one were given later, amongst others, by Mermin and by Peres.

The Free Will Theorem
http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/theorem.htm (excerpts)

A theorem recently propounded (2006) by Princeton mathematicians John Conway (who invented the famous Game of Life) and Simon Kochen (mentioned above) supports a powerful challenge to the scientific credentials of determinism, by showing that two cornerstones of contemporary science, namely acceptance of the scientific method as a reliable way of finding out about the world, and relativity theory’s exclusion of faster-than-light transmission of information, together conflict with determinism, in both its versions. Belief in determinism may thus come to be seen as notably unscientific. (...)

The bottom line is that, if determinism and the SPIN and FIN axioms are all maintained, there would have to be directions such that, if measurements were made for those directions by experimenter A and experimenter B, the TWIN axiom would be contradicted. The only way that both determinism and all three axioms can be maintained together would be to postulate that the experimenters are somehow prevented from measuring for these directions: that is, as Conway and Kochen put it, that the experimenters do not have free will to measure for these directions. (...)

Since the causal antecedents of the experimenters (or of whatever it is that determines which measurements are made) may be effectively independent of the causal antecedents of the particles being measured, such a limitation on what measurements can be made would require not merely determinism but a thoroughgoing conspiracy of nature. As Conway and Kochen point out, this in turn would undermine the scientific method, because it would mean that scientists cannot have access to random samples but rather are sometimes prevented by a conspiracy of nature from making measurements that if made would refute a hypothesis being tested.

We're afraid of this vertiginous perpetual creation surrounding us all so we invent all kinds of determinisms to 'keep us back on track', yet they only cause more authoritarian disarrays and coercions. Maybe, just like the Egyptian Khepri, we should learn to become creation ourself... as the mystics were telling us from immemorial times. We don't and stick to our fabricated determinisms because basically we are frighten of freedom. Politically thus, only a liberal democracy renders the orderly freedom expressed by Nature, through the evolution stressed by constant emergences.

[The Cat]

Cat posted the above pictures and music to trigger emotion that can blind or short circuit the logical part of the brain.
YeeZeVee, MBL also uses this trick. Hey Cat, You better start using your frontal lobe instead of your limbic system otherwise I wll let my dog out.

According to you, there's no logical part of the brain, only thoughts that are mechanically reacting, so whatever you come up with has no intrinsic value. Since that's your own logic... you should evaporate in the Laws of Nature, which are just your 'scientist' version of God's omnipotence.

Please read The Cat's argument above. I am using his argument to prove that Allah exist. I just did search and replace "Free Will" and "Determinism" with "Allah" One day some of you will understand, there is very little difference between faith on Allah and Free Will.

....there is NOT one single Allah in causality, but many different ones (biological, psychological, physical) that are interacting. None of them is outruling the others, they bounce into one another and so Allah is the one guiding light in all those interactions. Let's say I'm hungry but I have to eat later because of some obligations. Two contrary Allahs are pushing and I must choose, so will I. Allah is the option between many determining aspects. It's emergence... in the pinball universe of Quantum physic.

Dear baby-scientist, can't you see how contradictory this becomes? Two contrary 'Allah' pushing... There is not one single 'Allah'. Humm...

In fact YOUR argument is theistic: Your rhetoric sounds like that of a Muslim in a scientist garb, if we only switch 'strict laws of nature' for Allah and the Koran, and obedience to His dogma (we have no control, we just think we do) since the Koran is 'consistent and coherent'. Same gibberish in a scientific mode. You found an absolute in your determined world but this happens to be a wrong premise: causality is far from being monolithic (your brand of monotheism), unadulterated by emergences (in Islam: Bidah). In short your arguments are: Non Sequitur, Ad hominem and Strawman.

Just like Muslims, you start from a deterministic regency (Allah) as if it was scientifically conclusive, while it's not. The world is much more like a pinball game where emergences constantly changes causality, one of such emergences being the Big Bang itself! See how you, AbdulRahman, sounds like a Muslim: you bow and prostrate to some wrong premise from which you deduce false certainties. The fact is that nothing is absolute as in your creed.

You haven't learn anything from a thread of yours, under the nickname of abdul2006, showing that you were banned for 'profanity'! Therein you got busted, post after post, and the poll states that Free Will was voted at 88% ....

Do We Have Free Will? (abdul2006)
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22763

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Free Will is not merrily a thought, another false premise from you. It is conscience in action, the WILL to act sometimes despite the odds (risking your life to save another);

Doesn't that all stem from a thought first? What causes the action? Isn't there still a hidden benefit in saving someone else's life? Why would you do it?? Just because it's the "right" thing to do?? Is that what you tell yourself?? Or are you actually living up to an ideal that you have created for yourself? Is saving someone else a selfless action?

Free Will is a spontaneous act. When jumping into water to save someone, you don't think: You jump and/or call for help. You ACT.

Because that training is embedded in your subconscious?

Free Will escapes time process and we must differentiate it from the vast field of OPTIONS. It's an idea in motion.

I would agree. There are things done to us, things done by us and things done through us. The second one cannot be considered free will because we are still a slave to pleasing ourselves, whether we are even conscious or aware of that or not.

According to Aristotle on will, it should be define as a mixture of two notions: Spontaneous desire and intentionality. So the 'Free' in Free Will must be related to spontaneity and Will to intention. In short, Free Will modifies a determined state through originality.

Again, agreed. bit if this "intentionality" has considerations of self interest r pleasing one's self, then it is not free will.

it is intentionality using sapience and cognition. Free Will is also NOT to act if wisdom indicates so.

Doesn't ones wisdom (or perceived wisdom) merely come from their experiences (environment) and their mental abilities and/or genetic predispositions?

That wisdom is then part of the OPTIONS (experiences, environment, etc). There's no Free Will involved in the world of options or contingency. It stems from an -original- action once the options (static) are left over in the course of acting.

Free Will is instantaneous. It can only exist in the present, not in the past-future equation.

Agreed again.

That's the main reason why we do not understand Free Will, as we insert it within a continuum while it is rather an originality stemming out of this continuum (options, contingency). It's an impulse, instinct of the instant. A flash within discernment (for humans). In this creative moment, time is not.

Some say that a thought or feeling or will first happens, and then the rational mind decides whether to accept this notion it has been given for inspection or not. if it decides to keep it, it takes credit for it.

It's the will to be free or freed from determinism as in spirituality through meditation, which means measurement (toward objectivity by looking at subjectivity).

Is that free will, or one acting in what they believe to be their self interest as anyone would expect? Is it objective to want to be free of determinism or subjective? Is that an "objective" desire??? Can desire itself ever be "objective"??

You should know better about 'desire'. Trying to escape them is yet another one.

Right. One understands them rather than denying them or renouncing them and with understanding, they merely naturally drop from your hands without any effort.

Now, self-interest is also a form of options or contingency, so part of a true meditation.

Self interest is an option for very few people and instead would almost appear mandatory or unavoidable. Only when one awakens is it no longer unavoidable.

True mystics aren't renouncing the world, another egotistic vanity.

Correct

If you understand Jesus or de Mello, you find out that mysticism is to drop the illusions which crucify your soul,

Correct, or as Demello says, the belief system that keeps you unhappy. i do understand them quite well.

and that awareness is simply to marvel at the incessant flowing of creativity, to become creation yourself. As such many artists are much more mystics than monks: ''Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy'' (L. Beethoven). What's true from this is that there's no higher revelation than creativity whatever the form it takes, life being its enacted principle. True mystics as well as exceptional artists are simply plugged into it... And they look at us as being self-crucified to determinism.

The self has to die first and be reborn before the grip of determinism can be broken. We have to stop being a slave to pleasing ourself. I'm sure you've read this article before. http://www.carnatic.com/karmasaya/index ... %20Charity

It is emergence as creation... and all the artists in the world, past and present, are using Free Will to paint, write a poem, a play, or a symphony. To sculpt and build structures. Searchers and scientists are using Free Will to discover and disclose. Look at our magnificent Free Will, loud and clear:

Some would say they create nothing and merely remold the existing. Perhaps creation is a misleading word and "reorganization" would be more appropriate. I remember in Art school where we basically had to realize that every creative idea is actually stolen from something prior that the person saw to some extent, whether one is aware of that or not. I'm not sure if there really is such a thing as a totally "new" idea. although it can certainly seem that way. Is there really "creativity"? I'm told I'm creative, but I don't see it that way.

That's the whole process of enlightenment: from a state of subordination to a state of utter realization, that is to be creativity yourself. That's why kids have more Free Will (spontaneity) than we do, they're not yet drowned in patterns and labels, jailed into themselves.

So you are saying that it's creative to realize that we are actually not creating but rather remolding? Aren't children still merely remolding?? Isn't this why their creative (or remolding) abilities can become more extensive as they learn more before society eventually reverses that trend?

Anyway, just my two cents. I know you're better than me and above any conversation with me, so I do not expect any reply, nor would I even prefer one.
Bye.

I have no time for this kind of triviality.<SNIP>

Thanks for the conversation. I didn't know mystics could be so self impressed and snotty. Obviously you have an illusion to deal with that only you can deal with. Good luck.

[yeezevee]

The Cat is bad., cat is very insulting to AbdulRahman., any dear The Cat., the guys is a robot, please don't complain to "M's

abdul says : YeeZeVee, MBL also uses this trick. Hey Cat, You better start using your frontal lobe instead of your limbic system otherwise I wll let my dog out.

The Cat says, Dear baby-scientist, can't you see how contradictory this becomes? Two contrary 'Allah' pushing... There is not one single 'Allah'. Humm...

He is neither a baby nor a scientist., He is robot

You haven't learn anything from a thread of yours, under the nickname of abdul2006, ........

That is impossible., Robots don't learn., they need to be programmed dear The Cat.


Abdul dear abdul., I told you., you are a waste., complete waste., so please stop eating food. , May be you should be plugged in to a high voltage power supply . Learn something better to do in life dear abdul

[charleslemartel]

Charles,

I have said many time that you are one of the very few reasonable people at FFI. I agree with you on many things but not on few things. I can live with that.
Please read the following, think, and please, please be honest and magnanimous before responding.

Abdul,

Thanks a lot for your compliments. I don't know about magnanimity, but I would try to be as honest as I can.

1) In your very first post on this topic you have said, that you are leaning toward No Free Will but would prefer to stay as agnostic for now.
2. You also have said, all the evidence is showing up against Free Will.
3. I will add, the most powerful reason behind the conclusion for “No Free Will” is not based on the direct evidence or empirical but logical as in Mathematics.

I agree fully so far.

4. I will add, even if one, by meditation, fully integrates his/her conscious and subconscious mind the question of Free Will stays. Still there is no free will because no part of our subconscious or conscious mind is independent of laws of nature. There still going to be cause and effect in our brain. And we do not control the part that is not based on cause and effect as in HUP.

Who could have thought that one day humans would be able to tame electricity? Who could have imagined that humans would someday be able to defy gravity and fly in the air? Who could have thought that humans would one day be able to extend their sight and hearing so much that they would be able to see and hear someone speaking on the other side of the globe?

If you see it clearly, humans have not "controlled" any natural forces; they have simply adapted to them in a way to make them do their bidding.

All of this was made possible only because humans understood how the forces of nature worked. Without violating the laws, humans have molded things to these forces in a way to almost become their master (at least apparently).

Now, tell me, why should it be impossible to be free to take a decision if one really knew the mechanism of domain from where the decisions spring up?

Now the real kicker.
Ask yourself, is it something in you telling you not to give up on Free Will?

Nothing.

Is that a wish? Is that a desire? Is that a fantasy?

No.

Is the urge for Free Will based on reason?

I think so.

Or is it directly coming from the limbic system?

I don't know as I have not yet become fully conscious.

As you know in our early phase of evolution major part of our brain works on limbic system. At the later phases our conscious and subconscious mind evolved. In an evolved system still thought will bubble up from the limbic system but that need to be arrested by the frontal lobe logical circuitry and test it further for its validity.
So, where your desire for Free Will (for theist the desire for creator) is coming from?

I don't know as I have not yet become fully conscious.

After understanding and digesting that there is no Free Will, I wanted to discuss even more deeper topics of “Crime and Punishment”. Implications of No Free Will in the concept of right and wrong.
But alas, we are stuck on Free Will.

Please go ahead. I don't have any investment in "free will". I am not holding on to the concept so it is not going to cause me any CD either way.

Let me move the discussion ahead; why should one blame Muhammad or any other criminal if he didn't have any free will, and everything was predetermined?

[charleslemartel]

Spoiler! :

The Cat is bad., cat is very insulting to AbdulRahman., any dear The Cat., the guys is a robot, please don't complain to "M's

abdul says : YeeZeVee, MBL also uses this trick. Hey Cat, You better start using your frontal lobe instead of your limbic system otherwise I wll let my dog out.

The Cat says, Dear baby-scientist, can't you see how contradictory this becomes? Two contrary 'Allah' pushing... There is not one single 'Allah'. Humm...

He is neither a baby nor a scientist., He is robot

You haven't learn anything from a thread of yours, under the nickname of abdul2006, ........

That is impossible., Robots don't learn., they need to be programmed dear The Cat.


Abdul dear abdul., I told you., you are a waste., complete waste., so please stop eating food. , May be you should be plugged in to a high voltage power supply . Learn something better to do in life dear abdul

YZV,

Are you really unable to see how nonsensical your posts are sometimes?

[The Cat]

The Cat is bad., cat is very insulting to AbdulRahman., any dear The Cat., the guys is a robot, please don't complain to "M's

Really I never want to insult anyone: I've simply mirrored back his 'logic'. AdbulRahman is affected by something I once named Muslimness, yet he forced me to ponder over a subject I never did, I thank him for that.

Abdul dear abdul., I told you., you are a waste., complete waste., so please stop eating food. , May be you should be plugged in to a high voltage power supply . Learn something better to do in life dear abdul

Be careful now with your words, M's might have a look upon both of you.

Don't let personal conflicts or trivialities spoil arguments. Please...

[charleslemartel]

Doesn't that all stem from a thought first? What causes the action? Isn't there still a hidden benefit in saving someone else's life? Why would you do it?? Just because it's the "right" thing to do?? Is that what you tell yourself?? Or are you actually living up to an ideal that you have created for yourself? Is saving someone else a selfless action?

Free Will is a spontaneous act. When jumping into water to save someone, you don't think: You jump and/or call for help. You ACT.

This jump is not spontaneous; it is the result of the teaching and conditioning. You jump because you are pre-programmed. Most of the thinking takes place in the subconscious at a super speed; actually I don't think much thinking is possible through the conscious mind.

An act can be spontaneous only if there is no subconscious processes going on, and when you are fully aware.

Free Will escapes time process and we must differentiate it from the vast field of OPTIONS. It's an idea in motion. According to Aristotle on will, it should be define as a mixture of two notions: Spontaneous desire and intentionality. So the 'Free' in Free Will must be related to spontaneity and Will to intention. In short, Free Will modifies a determined state through originality.

There can be no "spontaneous" desire. Each desire is the result of programming. You are programmed by the nature to be desirous of beautiful (fertile) females. The disappointments in fulfilling this desire reprogram you to start desiring money or fame or power.

Free Will is instantaneous. It can only exist in the present, not in the past-future equation. That's the main reason why we do not understand Free Will, as we insert it within a continuum while it is rather an originality stemming out of this continuum (options, contingency). It's an impulse, instinct of the instant.

Free will might be instantaneous, but not every spontaneous impulse is free will. It is, most of the times, the result of predispositions.

If you understand Jesus or de Mello, you find out that mysticism is to drop the illusions which crucify your soul, and that awareness is simply to marvel at the incessant flowing of creativity, to become creation yourself.

Awareness is not to marvel at anything. It is simply awareness of whatever is happening in this very moment. It is simply like a mirror; if there is creativity, it would reflect it, and so on. It doesn't distinguish between good and bad, or creative or destructive.

As such many artists are much more mystics than monks: ''Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy'' (L. Beethoven). What's true from this is that there's no higher revelation than creativity whatever the form it takes, life being its enacted principle. True mystics as well as exceptional artists are simply plugged into it... And they look at us as being self-crucified to determinism.

Monks may or may not be mystics. Artists may or may not be mystics. Creativity has no relationship with awareness. The only criterion for a mystic is awareness; creativity and/or expression is only incidental.

That's the whole process of enlightenment: from a state of subordination to a state of utter realization, that is to be creativity yourself. That's why kids have more Free Will (spontaneity) than we do, they're not yet drowned in patterns and labels, jailed into themselves.

I really think that you are mistaking awareness with Free will. Kids are more aware, but not necessarily more free. In fact they are greater slaves to their instincts. Someone has famously said that to him buffaloes seem to be more enlightened than humans.

Enlightenment is acquired; it is not a given. It frees you from the tyranny of programmed emotions, but not every emotionless moron can be said to be enlightened.

[AbdulRahman]

Doesn't that all stem from a thought first? What causes the action? Isn't there still a hidden benefit in saving someone else's life? Why would you do it?? Just because it's the "right" thing to do?? Is that what you tell yourself?? Or are you actually living up to an ideal that you have created for yourself? Is saving someone else a selfless action?

Free Will is a spontaneous act. When jumping into water to save someone, you don't think: You jump and/or call for help. You ACT.

This jump is not spontaneous; it is the result of the teaching and conditioning. You jump because you are pre-programmed. Most of the thinking takes place in the subconscious at a super speed; actually I don't think much thinking is possible through the conscious mind.

An act can be spontaneous only if there is no subconscious processes going on, and when you are fully aware.

Free Will escapes time process and we must differentiate it from the vast field of OPTIONS. It's an idea in motion. According to Aristotle on will, it should be define as a mixture of two notions: Spontaneous desire and intentionality. So the 'Free' in Free Will must be related to spontaneity and Will to intention. In short, Free Will modifies a determined state through originality.

There can be no "spontaneous" desire. Each desire is the result of programming. You are programmed by the nature to be desirous of beautiful (fertile) females. The disappointments in fulfilling this desire reprogram you to start desiring money or fame or power.

Free Will is instantaneous. It can only exist in the present, not in the past-future equation. That's the main reason why we do not understand Free Will, as we insert it within a continuum while it is rather an originality stemming out of this continuum (options, contingency). It's an impulse, instinct of the instant.

Free will might be instantaneous, but not every spontaneous impulse is free will. It is, most of the times, the result of predispositions.

If you understand Jesus or de Mello, you find out that mysticism is to drop the illusions which crucify your soul, and that awareness is simply to marvel at the incessant flowing of creativity, to become creation yourself.

Awareness is not to marvel at anything. It is simply awareness of whatever is happening in this very moment. It is simply like a mirror; if there is creativity, it would reflect it, and so on. It doesn't distinguish between good and bad, or creative or destructive.

As such many artists are much more mystics than monks: ''Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy'' (L. Beethoven). What's true from this is that there's no higher revelation than creativity whatever the form it takes, life being its enacted principle. True mystics as well as exceptional artists are simply plugged into it... And they look at us as being self-crucified to determinism.

Monks may or may not be mystics. Artists may or may not be mystics. Creativity has no relationship with awareness. The only criterion for a mystic is awareness; creativity and/or expression is only incidental.

That's the whole process of enlightenment: from a state of subordination to a state of utter realization, that is to be creativity yourself. That's why kids have more Free Will (spontaneity) than we do, they're not yet drowned in patterns and labels, jailed into themselves.

I really think that you are mistaking awareness with Free will. Kids are more aware, but not necessarily more free. In fact they are greater slaves to their instincts. Someone has famously said that to him buffaloes seem to be more enlightened than humans.

Enlightenment is acquired; it is not a given. It frees you from the tyranny of programmed emotions, but not every emotionless moron can be said to be enlightened.

Ditto.

[AbdulRahman]

To the people of Faith on Free Will:

Proof of moronic, illiterate, statements.

Free Will is a spontaneous act. When jumping into water to save someone, you don't think: You jump and/or call for help. You ACT.

You are not aware of the fact that your brain computed in subconscious level and even in the lover than subconscious level (limbic system).
Subconscious mind is found to be 800 times faster than conscious mind. Limbic system some time is even faster.

YeeZeVee, MBL, The Cat, Fathom, (theistic mind) all are based on "feel good based justification" of right and wrong, good and bad, truth and false. So are Jeffery Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Hitler, OBL, Zarqawi, and suicide bombers.

Feel good pictures and music I enjoy them too but I do not let my reason circuitry get clouded with "feel goody".
Please listen to this wonderful, soul piercing music. - partening to Free Will

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZbKHDPPrrc
[2 minutes]

No wonder I consistently accuses these fake, half-baked, baby atheists to fall into the same trap of illogic.
Foundation of Christians, Muslims pseudo logic is the same as of theistic minds like YeeZeVee, MBL, The Cat, Fathom and more....

Only one thing pisses me off, that is "illogic"
Fathom's logic is: Since computers are not self-aware therefore, they do not have free will but we are self-aware therefore, we have free will.
Fathom and others like his theistic mind (illogical mind) fail to see that one could be self-aware but still not be able to do or even think.

I disagree on few small thing with Charles but I can discuss with him about the world we live in because he has shown rationality. On the other hand, you theistic mind are unreasonable, can't process logic.

I am not denying the fact and the importance of Love, emotion, compassion, forgiveness, passion etc. These are present in human psyche and are useful. But that doesn't mean we should lose the sight of reason, logic, rationality, and science to understand these.

Some time I wonder, what kind of world do we live in?
On the one hand we put man on the Moon and brought them back to Earth safely.
We developed the modern field of Neuropsychology and invented fMRI machine and its interpretation techniques. We refined human rights. We did away with slavery.
We came up with the idea of animal right.
We improved upon science and technology.
But we couldn't or did not do much to purging theistic irrational mind.
Number of illogical people, driven by "Feeling based truth" are dime a dozen. Sad, sad, sad situation.
May be I am from 22nd century.

Thanks but no thnks to "The Cat" for the following heart, feeling based proof for the Free Will.



La Sagrada Familia, Barcelona. Architect: Antoni Gaudi.

Impression of sunrise, Claude Monet.

Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Alegro. Mozart

Tomorrow Never Knows, The Beatles

[AbdulRahman]

To the rational people like Cahrles:

4. I will add, even if one, by meditation, fully integrates his/her conscious and subconscious mind the question of Free Will stays. Still there is no free will because no part of our subconscious or conscious mind is independent of laws of nature. There still going to be cause and effect in our brain. And we do not control the part that is not based on cause and effect as in HUP.

Who could have thought that one day humans would be able to tame electricity? Who could have imagined that humans would someday be able to defy gravity and fly in the air? Who could have thought that humans would one day be able to extend their sight and hearing so much that they would be able to see and hear someone speaking on the other side of the globe?

One can't exclude anything from the future possibilities.
Our entire scientific knowledge could be proven to be wrong and naive 200 years from now. We might develop a completely new set of laws of physics that could explain things even better. Yup, anything is possible. Including you finding out that Abdul Rahman is the real god who created you and your forefathers. The only reason you can't understand this is because you are using wrong kind of logic/science. But one day, after you die you will find out Abdul Rahman is the God.

Using future knowledge, "Anything goes"

Obviously, the logical conclusion is that whenever two intelligent entities (Cahrles and Abdul) debate/communicate, it must be done according to all the knowledge human knows as of today.
If we want to just fantasies, or explore all kind of possibilities, weirdoes then we do not have to abide by this constrain.

[Fathom]

What makes you think that Free Will is contingent on theism?

Core foundation of theistic mind is superstations. Free Will is a superstition. It is not real. It is an illusion. And now it is no longer illusion for you but has become delusion.

You claim that Free Will is a "superstition" in the face of direct evidence that contradicts your claim? The ability to make a choice is the direct evidence that unequivocably cointradicts your claim. We can make choices, which include consciously unreasonable choices, for the simple reason that we have the free will to do so. We can knowingly make the wrong choice for any reason we like. If we were so compelled by determinism in our choice making situations, we could never knowingly and consciously make the wrong choice.

But we can, and we do. Why?

Theistic mind can't process logic properly.

Almost all the greatest mathematicians and inventors in history were theistic.

Here is the reason again, why free will is false.
Whatever "thought" that you call decision, choice, pops up in your head is in fact the result of electrochemical action/reaction, and a response to bodily internal and external stimuli - a continuous chain of cause and effect that follows strict laws of nature.
For reasonable people nothing more need to be said to understand that Free Will doesn't exist.
Can you deny my above statement in Blue color?

Yes I can absolutely deny your statement above, with ease. You claim that it is "a continuous chain of cause and effect that follows strict laws of nature."

What "laws of nature" are you talking about? If everything must follow the so-called strict "laws of nature" as you claim, how then does the human animal pervert those laws with his creative abilities? We can alter the natural state of things with genetic engineering and the like, defying the laws of nature with our own creativity.

Therefore, with my example above, I have easily demonstrated that not everything must follow the strict laws of nature as you claim, for the human animal has been perverting the natural state of things for millenium.

Fathom,
Just because you left Christianity and then left Islam doesn't mean your mind is no longer theistic.
Only when you can process logic properly, consistantly, coherently, everywhere then you will be free of the mental memetic virus. Yup, theistic virus partially, temporarily damages neural network. About 2/3 of all atheists still has theistic mind and has some kind of faith.

Surely you cannot hold yourself up as an example of pure logic and reason, particularly when flaws in your logic and reasoning have been made abundantly clear?

"Rules" negate "Free Will"

Rules are broken on a daily basis via human creativity.

Man made laws (US laws for crime) are not enforced everywhere, all the time with 100% accuracy. Whereas, laws of nature (rules) are strictly enforced, everywhere, all the time, with 100% accuracy. You did not think of that shows a slight malfunction in your brain.

If that were true than we can not alter the natural state of anything via genetic engineering, and you were saying something about the brain malfunctioning?

The way to overcome this effect, try to fall in love with the truth, whatever the truth may be.

You tell me to fall in love with the truth, and then end your statement with "whatever the truth may be." When will you understand that there is no such thing as the truth?

[AbdulRahman]

Fathom,

If everything must follow the so-called strict "laws of nature" as you claim, how then does the human animal pervert those laws with his creative abilities?
We can alter the natural state of things with genetic engineering and the like, defying the laws of nature with our own creativity.

OK, fair enough. Let's agree to disagree on the following. Once we agree on the following disagreement then we can debate further on these.

Fathom thinks human and animal breaks the laws of nature. Fathom thinks genetic enginering violates the laws of nature, human creativity defy the laws of nature.
Fathom also thinks there is no such thing as truth.

When will you understand that there is no such thing as the truth?

Wehreas:
Abdul thinks neither, human nor animal, nor any entity in the entire universe breaks the laws of nature.
Abdul thinks, manupulation of genetics codes is not the violation of laws of nature. But changing the ratio of circumference to diameter in uniform gravity, or value of e, or 2+2 = 4, or Universal gravitational constant, or speed of light, or mass of electron, or plank constant, or similar charges repell each other are violation of laws of nature.
[Genetic codes and human brain are built on top of the above fundamental laws of nature.]

[Fathom]

Abdul thinks neither, human nor animal, nor any entity in the entire universe breaks the laws of nature.
Abdul thinks 2+2 = 4

On paper, and with the human construction of the mathematical tables, 2 + 2 does indeed = 4. However, when we take away that train of thought, does the math always add up? Let's find out.

Can you think in abstracts? Let's create an example ...

Let us go back in time to a cave man. This cave man is a hunter of lions. He has always hunted mature adult lions for his tribe. He knows everything about hunting lions. Then, one day he was standing outside his cave, and he seen a lion running towards him. The lion is the same size as every lion he has ever seen. His mind sees 1 lion.

Suddenly, he sees another lion also running towards him, twice the size as the first lion. It is the largest lion he has ever seen; twice the size of any lion he has ever seen. In his mind he remembers seeing 2 lions in the past, but he has never seen anything like this before. In the past, he would stand and face two lions, but never 3 or more. But at this moment, although there are only 2 lions, he computes that there are 3 because one of them is twice the size as a normal lion.

In the mind of that cave man, 1 + 1 = 3 because one of the lions is twice as large as normal. He sees 3 X the lion, instead of 2 X.

My point? Stringent mathematics can only show you part of the whole picture, but not all of it. There are other ways of understanding what we see.