free will question

@lord shorty,

lord shorty;26365 wrote:

why do people use free will differently?

I do not have 'free-will', nor do i 'use it'.

Quote:

people are not the same when forced into this world.

"Forced"? Agenda? Every Perspective (us) is unique.

Quote:

so is their spark of individuality preset to react to reality in a specific way as it unfolds?

We are part and parcel of that 'unfolding' reality, moment by moment. The water is not programmed to take the shape of the galass that it finds itself in in a particular moment. Neither are we. We are part of the unique manifesting universes at the moment.

2 Replies

@lord shorty,

lord shorty wrote:

why do people use free will differently?

people are not the same when forced into this world.

so is their spark of individuality preset to react to reality in a specific way as it unfolds?

You have an interesting question but it is phrased strangely.
This is an excerpt from a book that I have been working on.

Quote:

What is our will 'Free' from?

There are two explanations. The first is that free will is when 'will' is free from lower animal desires. This definition is potential free will. This concept of free will increases as animals evolve. This is the truth only with respect to the earth and the way that things came in their order.

True free will is from the perspective of heaven. This definition is that our will is free from God's will and must chose to follow it. This is true free will. Animals can only ever perform God's will for them (same as Angels) and therefore have no free will. But we must choose to follow God's will, for if we do not actively chose we are not performing His will. (Animals can only choose whether or not to follow our will, but no matter what they choose they are following God's will.)
This is a key to understanding the account of Adam and Hhavah. Before the eating of the tree of wisdom, our free will was potential. Our natural inclination was God's will, like the animals, but we still had the opportunity to go against His will. Doing bad would have had to have been an active choice whereas following his will would have been natural. Once we attained the knowledge of right and wrong, we had to actively choose right because our natural inclination became wrong to follow.

Hhavah's logic in taking from the fruit was as follows. The snake, which represented Hhavah's animal desire (The Zohar),was indulging in the bad fruit. Hhavah deduced from the fact that she was created to be greater than the animals that she should be able to do all that they can. If an animal can touch the fruit, Kal V' Hhomer (how much more so) should she be able to touch it and not die. What Hhavah should have realized is that a creature that is greater has more responsibility and cannot perform all of the acts that a lesser creature can. The same way an adult should not act as a child.

The balance of Free Will is between your animal body, and your divine soul.

Example: Smoking -- your body is addicted to nicotine and desires a cigarette.
You don't have to smoke a cigarette, although you have a physical desire to. Your will is free from your bodily desires.
You know that it is not healthy to smoke a cigarette and it is thus against logic and truth. But it is difficult to follow logic and truth when you have such a strong bodily desire.

This is an example of a free will dilema. On the one hand you have the natural impulse that you can follow. It is an easier decission but not necissarily the right one.
On the other hand you have truth and logic but it is a difficult decission. It is going upstream, against your animal desires.

The easiest way to have logic and truth succeed is to fight desire with desire. Use your animal desires against smoking. Belong to a group of people that are anti-smokers and look down on smokers. Your flocking-instincts will push you to stop smoking. Date a woman that hates kissing you and touching you after you had a cigarette, that way your sexual desires will go against your desire to smoke.
Of course the choice is always free, but it becomes an easier choice when your desire not to smoke is stronger than your desire to smoke.
Sometimes willpower is not enough by itself.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

I do not have 'free-will', nor do i 'use it'.

How do you know there is no free-will?

2 Replies

@Angel phil,

If the post's original question is asking why does everyone makes different choices well the answer is really in the question. That is what free-will is, the power to choose and everyone choosing something different although some times choosing the same things is just an evidence of free-will.

0 Replies

@Angel phil,

Angel;26403 wrote:

How do you know there is no free-will?

I do not 'know' that there is no 'free-will'. I find no reason to accept the common egoic notion. All the evidence that I have examined, all point to the impossibility of any actual 'free-will'.
Let me give you a tid-bit to chew on, something small;
Ok, in order to offer an ultimately complete definition of 'you', for instance, certain considerations must be made.
First, for an existentially correct 'definition', in actual time-space, the definition must be of a particular exact moment of your existence. And the definition is unique to that particular moment. Another moment would require a different definition as the universe is 'now' different, as are you.
Now! for a complete 'definition' of 'you', we must take into consideration 'your' context. Essential to a proper definition, is whether you were born and lived in Sheffield all your life, or were born in Mali or Maxico. That is all part of a complete definition.
Skipping to the punchline (think 'Butterfly Effect) the entire universe, of the moment, is 'your' context, and essential to a complete understanding/definition of 'who you are'. So, quite literally and essentially, 'you' and the universe that you perceive are One. Like a Tapestry. One moment.

Now, who but ego thinks that she can change the entire universe to suit her desires. "I choose____!" After all, if you are free to make a change in the universe, you are also 'changing' the entire universe!! The entire universe of the moment, is absolutely essential to the complete 'definitions' of any and every'thing' in said universe! For you to flutter one eyelash, by 'choice', means that for those trillions and trillions of moments, that you have created, recreated, the entire universe to conform to your wishes. Is this food for ego or what?
Needless to say, as there is no 'motion' in these moments, anyway, but by appearances to Perspective. One can 'do' nothing, freely or otherwise, and 'free-will' and 'choice' are 'free-will' and 'choice' to DO something. One simply 'is', Now! and Now! and Now!
Free-will is a 'feeling', and sometimes (oftentimes, considering the egoic content) a 'belief', that people are willing to kill and die for, but no more than that. It feeeels so gooood to be god! When things go how we might desire, we take credit (pride), when they don't, we come up with excuses.
This notion of 'free-will' is what the faithful must surrender to their god.
"Not 'my will' but 'thine'..."
Peace

3 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Now, who but ego thinks that she can change the entire universe to suit her desires. "I choose____!" After if you are free to make a chamge in the universe, you are also 'changing' the entire universe!! The entire universe of the moment, is absolutely essential to the complete 'definitions' of any and every'thing'. For you to flutter one eyelash, by 'choice' means that for those trillions of moments, that you have created, recreated, the entire universe to conform to your wishes. Is this foor for ego or what?

This is a very extreme understanding of free will. Of course free will does not mean that we can get anything we want and change the universe to suit our needs.

Free will simply means that we can 'chose' between right and wrong. Or to read one book vs. another. Every action we do is either done through habbit or an active choice. You speak as if we are all sleepwalking!

Well I say wake up! and start taking responsibilty for your actions.

You are correct that there are things that we cannot change. And you are correct that one must let go of ones ego and accept the things that one cannot change. But there are things that we can change and effect. There are places where we can excercize choice. It is not only possible but necissary that we make proper choices.

Here is a quote from Wikopedia on the Determinism of Quantum Mechanics

Quote:

At one time, it was assumed in the physical sciences that if the behavior observed in a system cannot be predicted, the problem is due to lack of fine-grained information, so that a sufficiently detailed investigation would eventually result in a deterministic theory ("If you knew exactly all the forces acting on the dice, you would be able to predict which number comes up"). However, the advent of quantum mechanics removed the underpinning from that approach, with the claim that (at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation) the most basic constituents of matter behave indeterministically, in accordance with such properties as the uncertainty principle. Quantum indeterminism was controversial on its introduction, with Einstein among the opposition, but gradually gained ground. Experiments confirmed the correctness of quantum mechanics, with a test of the Bell's theorem by Alain Aspect being particularly important because it showed that determinism and locality cannot both be true. Bohmian quantum mechanics remains the main attempt to preserve determinism (albeit at the expense of locality).

1 Reply

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Scientific theory that says we cannot predict outcomes by no means proves that we determine outcomes, Binyamin, so it has nothing to do with free will. Consider the story you posted about Adam and Hhavah. (Thanks, by the way, for sharing with us this other name for Eve. Is that how her name is spelled in Hebrew?) I posted this in another thread, but since it applies to free will, I will repost it here. Adam could not choose to obey God, because obeying God is good, the only real good if you consider things from a scriptural perspective, but Adam had no clue what good was. Because he only understood good once he ate the fruit that contained the knowledge of good. Before he ate the fruit he couldn't understand that disobeying God was evil. It amazes me that anyone (and by anyone I mean just about everyone) claims that this story illustrates that we have free will, when in fact it shows the exact opposite.

2 Replies

@nameless,

Nameless,

I'd like to ask some questions on your stance here. I hope you'll help me understand more fully where you're coming from. It appears you believe quite strongly in your assertion, and I'm not sure I've seen this particular approach. My sense is that your support relies on the "loaded" aspect of a semantic difference, not logic. I'm very likely wrong and hope you'll do me the service of dispensing some insight.

nameless wrote:

First, for an existentially correct 'definition', in actual time-space, the definition must be of a particular exact moment of your existence. And the definition is unique to that particular moment. Another moment would require a different definition as the universe is 'now' different, as are you.

Good point. If we were to tally and define the entire universe before one moment, into all its constituent parts then redo the exercise after any moment in time, they would - if even a tiny bit - be different. To then say, "The Universe is Now Different" would be a correct statement but only insomuch as one, tiny (perhaps infinitesimal) difference. To then stand and profess, "You've changed the universe, my god!" - although a true statement - is grossly misleading. How absurd that particular prophecy strikes people can't be used as support against anything since its inflammatory.

nameless wrote:

... the entire universe, of the moment, is 'your' context, and essential to a complete understanding/definition of 'who you are'. So, quite literally and essentially, 'you' and the universe that you perceive are One. Like a Tapestry. One moment.

One is a component of the other. That is not to say "literally" they are one. A seed is part of the apple and when analyzed whole, that seed is contained within the whole package, but it is misleading/incorrect to say they an apple seed and an apple are one. One is part of the other - distinctly different.

nameless wrote:

For you to flutter one eyelash, by 'choice', means that for those trillions and trillions of moments, that you have created, recreated, the entire universe to conform to your wishes. Is this food for ego or what?

This is a really, really big jump. I may have made a change in one small aspect of that universe, but that's distinctly different than changing the, "... entire universe". Once again, if taken and analized to its smallest particles, a change has been made and therefore it is a different universe. But again, that's distinctly different from changing the "whole" - which implies "all".

If there is no free will, and I am but a programmed partner carrying out my predictable place in the large chain, even *that* (by your definition of changing part = changing the whole) would constitute "changing the universe". If we again follow that logic; that too would be egoic and therefore is absurd to consider.

I'll concur readily that ego plays a large part in what we struggle to justify. It happens behind the scenes and lubricates notions that should be hard to swallow.

In any case, I'm hoping you'll help clarify this. Thanks for your indulgence.

Smile

2 Replies

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Scientific theory that says we cannot predict outcomes by no means proves that we determine outcomes, Binyamin, so it has nothing to do with free will. Consider the story you posted about Adam and Hhavah. (Thanks, by the way, for sharing with us this other name for Eve. Is that how her name is spelled in Hebrew?) I posted this in another thread, but since it applies to free will, I will repost it here. Adam could not choose to obey God, because obeying God is good, the only real good if you consider things from a scriptural perspective, but Adam had no clue what good was. Because he only understood good once he ate the fruit that contained the knowledge of good. Before he ate the fruit he couldn't understand that disobeying God was evil. It amazes me that anyone (and by anyone I mean just about everyone) claims that this story illustrates that we have free will, when in fact it shows the exact opposite.

(Hhava is the way Eve is written in Hebrew)
The main argument against Free-Will is determinism vs. Indeterminism which agrees with quantum mechanics. It does not prove that free will is true, but it no longer can prove that it is false.

The legend of the tree of wisdom is pointing out the source of the free will we know today. Your understanding of the story is not the traditional understanding. Think of a super intelligent Dog. It is a purely instinctual creature but you can command it. You tell it not to do something and it listens. It has no free will because it follows its instincts. It understands the concept of reward and punishment and it understands that it will be punished if it disobeys and rewarded if it obeys. Now the dog disobeys you and it knows it. The first thing it does is hide itself from you in shame.
This is a metaphor and should not be taken literally. It illustrates what the animal side is, and this is the side that 'Adam' did not yet have.

(please excuse the terminology because I am chosing the closest word to the Hebrew meaning.)

In the beginning of the story Adam's skin is described as (Aor) with the letter 'aleph'. This litterally translates as 'light'. His instincts are like the angels. They are all pure good. Adam knows no good or evil, he only knows Truth and Lies. He opperates according to what is true. Apparently it was not apperantly 'true' to Adam that the eating of the fruit was false. So he had to be given a special commandment. After the eating of the fruit, his skin is described as (A'or) with the letter 'Ayin' which translates to 'leather'. His concept of 'Truth' and 'Lies' became 'Good' and 'Evil'. Someone who sees only Truth and Lies, does not have Free choice as we experience it. We have the 'choice' to jump into fire today, but we dont chose it because it is a 'lie' to do so. This is the closest example I can think of to what it would have been like before the 'sin'. After the 'sin' Adam no longer saw truth or lies in actions just good and evil. It is called the Tree of Knowledge, because only through Knowledge of what is 'good' and what is 'evil' can we return to the level of seeing things as 'True' or 'False'.

About Kayin it later says (Bre**** [Genesis] 4:7) (I don't know how the christian translation goes, but I am translating from the hebrew) "If you improve yourself you will rule yourself, and if you don't improve that is the opening to sin. It's desire is towards you but you can overcome it."

2 Replies

@Binyamin Tsadik,

I know my understanding of the story isn't the traditional understanding... that's what mistifies me really.

Quote:

Adam knows no good or evil, he only knows Truth and Lies.

Quote:

Someone who sees only Truth and Lies, does not have Free choice as we experience it.

Bin, you're essentially saying here that before Adam ate the fruit he did not have free will. Which is what I said. If you want to postulate that after he ate the fruit he gained free will, then that's an entirely different argument. But my point is simply that the story of the original sin, that is the story about Adam eating the fruit, does not show that Adam had free will, but in fact shows the opposite.

0 Replies

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

Think of a super intelligent Dog. It is a purely instinctual creature but you can command it. You tell it not to do something and it listens. It has no free will because it follows its instincts. It understands the concept of reward and punishment and it understands that it will be punished if it disobeys and rewarded if it obeys. Now the dog disobeys you and it knows it. The first thing it does is hide itself from you in shame.

Let me see if I can follow you here. What you are saying is "God's" purpose is to "command" us to follow His law? Right? And you are using the analogy of a dog obeying command's to represent that fact. Right? Can you not see what is so very wrong with this picture? What you are saying is, as far as your interpretation of "God" is, is much akin to that of a human being to a "dog"? Now I fully understand you will say you are "metaphorically speaking". Do you know what a metaphor is? In any context to use such a comparison could only attest to one's actual understanding of the position they are attempting to simplify. For anyone to construe God's relationship to man to that of a human to a dog represent's, IMO, a mind set that can only be defined as being totally alienated from the "human experience". I cannot conceive of that mind set no matter how hard I try.

William

2 Replies

@William,

How could Adam and Eve have known what free will is, we still don't have a clue. It can only be assumed that free will is us having the ability to "think for ourselves". We have that ability. As simple as that sounds, it works for me. But free will must be for all, not just those who can utter those words. Even they have free will even though they have no clue as to what those two words mean. But of course they don't have the opportunity to exercise their free will because the "free will" of another will not allow them too.

William

1 Reply

@William,

William wrote:

Let me see if I can follow you here. What you are saying is "God's" purpose is to "command" us to follow His law? Right? And you are using the analogy of a dog obeying command's to represent that fact. Right? Can you not see what is so very wrong with this picture? What you are saying is, as far as your interpretation of "God" is, is much akin to that of a human being to a "dog"? Now I fully understand you will say you are "metaphorically speaking". Do you know what a metaphor is? In any context to use such a comparison could only attest to one's actual understanding of the position they are attempting to simplify. For anyone to construe God's relationship to man to that of a human to a dog represent's, IMO, a mind set that can only be defined as being totally alienated from the "human experience". I cannot conceive of that mind set no matter how hard I try.

William

No, this metaphor was not of God but of Man. It was supposed to exemplify what an entirely animalistic man would be. This is not what Adam is, it was to exemplify a being without free-will

0 Replies

@William,

William wrote:

How could Adam and Eve have known what free will is, we still don't have a clue. It can only be assumed that free will is us having the ability to "think for ourselves". We have that ability. As simple as that sounds, it works for me. But free will must be for all, not just those who can utter those words. Even they have free will even though they have no clue as to what those two words mean. But of course they don't have the opportunity to exercise their free will because the "free will" of another will not allow them too.

William

You misunderstand.
They had as much free will as you have to jump into a fire.
You can jump into the fire, but you never would because you know it is false. One that sees the world in truths and falsehoods has freewill but does not excersize it because the truth is so clear to them they cannot possibly go against it.
They did not follow orders like a dog. That was not the purpose of the metaphor. There was one command only. The entire garden was for them. Every fruit (which is a metaphor for pleasure) is for them, except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The snake, according to the Zohar, was Hhava's (Eve's) Evil inclination that was not yet a part of her. It existed outside of her and was not an internal influence(whatever that means).
This influence was only able to seduce her because the idea of True and False was not applicable to the fruit. According to Adam it was false of her to touch it and the snake argued 'look I can touch it and I don't die'.
The idea of the Tree is that it mixed up truth and falsehood even externally. It was something that removed Truth and Falsehood from the world. Thus Hhavah couldn't see if it was True or False to eat from it. It was not obvious and that is why the 'evil inclination' was able to hold sway over her. It was the only place where she viably had a choice.
After eating from it, the entire world became like the tree. True and false became Good and Evil.

2 Replies

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

You misunderstand.
They had as much free will as you have to jump into a fire.
You can jump into the fire, but you never would because you know it is false. One that sees the world in truths and falsehoods has freewill but does not excersize it because the truth is so clear to them they cannot possibly go against it.
They did not follow orders like a dog. That was not the purpose of the metaphor. There was one command only. The entire garden was for them. Every fruit (which is a metaphor for pleasure) is for them, except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The snake, according to the Zohar, was Hhava's (Eve's) Evil inclination that was not yet a part of her. It existed outside of her and was not an internal influence(whatever that means).
This influence was only able to seduce her because the idea of True and False was not applicable to the fruit. According to Adam it was false of her to touch it and the snake argued 'look I can touch it and I don't die'.
The idea of the Tree is that it mixed up truth and falsehood even externally. It was something that removed Truth and Falsehood from the world. Thus Hhavah couldn't see if it was True or False to eat from it. It was not obvious and that is why the 'evil inclination' was able to hold sway over her. It was the only place where she viably had a choice.
After eating from it, the entire world became like the tree. True and false became Good and Evil.

Damn! :brickwall:

0 Replies

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin, first you said,

Quote:

Someone who sees only Truth and Lies, does not have Free choice...

then

Quote:

One that sees the world in truths and falsehoods has freewill...

Maybe it's better if we just leave this topic alone. Debates about free will get frustrating for both sides. For those proponents of free will, the very idea that we don't have free will is most often insulting. And for those who don't uphold the notion that we have free will, this debate usually comes down to us reiterating the same point continually, which the free will advocates constantly ignore. I'm with William in so far as... :brickwall:

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace bro... you picking at my statements and not understanding them?

Never said someone that sees things as true and false has no free will.

Never.

Look over every single one of my statements.
I didn't edit them either.

Quote:

One that sees the world in truths and falsehoods has freewill but does not excersize it

I keep bringing the same example. One may have the free will to jump into a fire. But they dont do it. One will not excersize the free will to go against the truth. It is therefore as if they don't have free will (because they never excersize it)

But we are picking around in the little details again and missing the big picture.

1 Reply

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Ya I wasn't trying to call your integrity into question there Bin, just trying to point out that we're all dancing in circles here. At least I am anyway, and it's geting a lil confusing.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil;26420 wrote:

Nameless,

I'd like to ask some questions on your stance here. I hope you'll help me understand more fully where you're coming from.

Certainly.

Quote:

It appears you believe quite strongly in your assertion, and I'm not sure I've seen this particular approach.

No, I do not 'believe' it at all. I accept it, tentatively, as my interpretation of the evidence, so far. New evidence is welcomed, and I will examine it as needed and redetermine my understanding if need be. You don't do that with 'beliefs'.

Quote:

My sense is that your support relies on the "loaded" aspect of a semantic difference, not logic. I'm very likely wrong and hope you'll do me the service of dispensing some insight.

My evidences, data pool, comes from many diverse sources; I have noted trends... This is just one avenue that leads to Rome.

Quote:

Quote:
First, for an existentially correct 'definition', in actual time-space, the definition must be of a particular exact moment of your existence. And the definition is unique to that particular moment. Another moment would require a different definition as the universe is 'now' different, as are you.

Good point. If we were to tally and define the entire universe before one moment, into all its constituent parts then redo the exercise after any moment in time, they would - if even a tiny bit - be different. To then say, "The Universe is Now Different" would be a correct statement but only insomuch as one, tiny (perhaps infinitesimal) difference.

Any difference at all is an entire new universe and an entirely new definition of everything comprising the universe in question, of the moment.

Quote:

To then stand and profess, "You've changed the universe, my god!" - although a true statement - is grossly misleading.

Not in the least. Can you even imagine the energy that might be requires to alter every heavenly body, the 'material' of the universe by just one atom? One electron per planet?
There is no inherent difference between the micro and the macro.
Depending on Perspective, yes, even a true statement can be 'misleading'. I see this as leading rather directly into the 'light'.

Quote:

How absurd that particular prophecy strikes people can't be used as support against anything since its inflammatory.

Sorry, I cannot interpret this into meaning. Perhaps you could rephrase? There was no prophecy. I see nothing 'inflamatory'. And even if there was something 'inflamatory' (as truth always is) that would be insufficient grounds for refutation.

Quote:

Quote:
... the entire universe, of the moment, is 'your' context, and essential to a complete understanding/definition of 'who you are'. So, quite literally and essentially, 'you' and the universe that you perceive are One. Like a Tapestry. One moment.

One is a component of the other. That is not to say "literally" they are one.

Definitions and distinctions are relics of Perspective. How we see, not what we see. Even 'classical physics' can find no definitive place where one thing leaves off, and another begins. Quantum reinforces this 'Oneness' more so every day. Yes, all is literally One, monistic. It is Perspective that 'sees' 'differentiation', 'thought' that supports and ego that identifies with thoughts...

Quote:

A seed is part of the apple and when analyzed whole, that seed is contained within the whole package, but it is misleading/incorrect to say they an apple seed and an apple are one. One is part of the other - distinctly different.

Sorry, only superficially.

Quote:

Quote:
For you to flutter one eyelash, by 'choice', means that for those trillions and trillions of moments, that you have created, recreated, the entire universe to conform to your wishes. Is this food for ego or what?

This is a really, really big jump. I may have made a change in one small aspect of that universe, but that's distinctly different than changing the, "... entire universe".

As the entire universe is required for a complete definition/context' for everything, you cannot 'change one corner' without creating an entirely new universe. That isn't a jump at all; it's reality. I don't think that you can refute the logic. It holds in the minutia and in the extremis. Clean.

Quote:

If there is no free will, and I am but a programmed partner carrying out my predictable place in the large chain,

Perhaps you are refering to 'determinism'. I am not, nor have I.
'Determinism' is a relic of Perspective ('linearity', 'motion'..)

Quote:

even *that* (by your definition of changing part = changing the whole) would constitute "changing the universe". If we again follow that logic; that too would be egoic and therefore is absurd to consider.

I allow no 'motion' in existence. That is another relic of Perspective. If there is no 'motion' there is no 'doing' and hence, no 'changing' (verb form) anything. There are too many paradoxes to take the notion of actual, inherent 'motion' seriously. Just an 'appearance', to some.
EgoPerspective is as valid a Perspective as any other, and can be discarded with no more impugnity than any other. No Perspective is 'absurd' (but by egoic proclamation).

Quote:

In any case, I'm hoping you'll help clarify this. Thanks for your indulgence.

I hope that I have clarified a bit. If not, just ask.
Peace

0 Replies

free will question

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know