Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

As I have mentioned in another thread, neither induction nor deduction nor any manner of proof known to man is capable of demonstrating the truth or falsity of non-dualism. It is, therefore, an issue of metaphysics, a matter purely of faith. I have a good deal of respect for people who sincerely believe in metaphysical systems, but I will not debate their metaphysics.

Yes, you, fresco, JLNobody and I and possibly others agreed that nondualism cannot be proven. But I wouldn't say it in such absolute terms ruling out person to person transmission and such. I'm not sure what person-to-person transmission of the true nature of reality involves and neither do you, it would seem, so one cannot say one way or the other, i.e. "nor any manner of proof known to man" is beyond what one can know.

Secondly, Re: "a matter purely of faith". Given that nondualism cannot be proven to ?'others' does not mean an individual cannot ?'know' that it is the truth as opposed to believing it is, even though that knowing may not be of a familiar kind.

And the ?'knowing' of nondualism, or unity consciousness etc. can also be ?'knowing' in the usual sense in terms of reflection, e.g. In a similar fashion that one ?'knows' they have observed a landscape yesterday at Mount Effer, through memory, they can ?'know' in retrospect from dualism (as much as anyone can 'know' anything from memory) that they have been in a nondual state, if it can be called a state., and if it can be stated in that manner.

As such the existence of nondualism is not, "a matter purely of faith" as you say. For people who know nondualism (universal consciousness, etc) it can be a fact of knowledge for them, from retrospection , memory etc., and from being it.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Secondly, Re: "a matter purely of faith". Given that nondualism cannot be proven to ?'others' does not mean an individual cannot ?'know' that it is the truth as opposed to believing it is, even though that knowing may not be of a familiar kind.

Yep. As I have mentioned several times before, Twyvel, you have a very well developed belief system here.

You are even using arguments Christians often use in these fora.

0 Replies

jonat3

Quote:

According to you observation of an object may not equal the reality of the object.

An observation of an object is equal to the object in the moment of observation, which at any moment, in any observation is, ?'the reality' of the (apparent) object and (apparent) subject.

Quote:

It has to be noted that even though science is only descriptive in nature, it is atleast accurate enough to allow us to manipulate the universe.

Manipulation is only an appearance if the position is taken that there is no ?'self', or manipulator, i.e. the ?'manipulator Is the universe, (and/or is at least an aspect of the universe and not distinct from it.).

Quote:

Wether an observation of an object conforms to reality or not still doesn't answer the question if human minds are predetermined in nature. Reality might be that it is so, or might not. Even this is descriptive in nature, but descriptions is all we have.

I don't think the ?'human mind' can be distinguished from ?'nature', from observations etc. What is a mind apart from content? I don't know. Descriptions are all that we ?'appear' to have. If truth exists whether else could it be but right here?

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

But I wouldn't say it in such absolute terms ruling out person to person transmission and such. I'm not sure what person-to-person transmission of the true nature of reality involves and neither do you, it would seem, so one cannot say one way or the other, i.e. "nor any manner of proof known to man" is beyond what one can know.

Are you suggesting that I'm wrong to eliminate unknown forms of proof because I don't know if they exist? I fear we're treading very closely to the Rumsfeldian notion of the "unknown unknowns" here. "Person-to-person transmission of the true nature of reality" -- whatever that might be -- may very well prove, beyond question, the truth or falsity of non-dualism. But if it is not a "manner of proof known to man," then I think we can at least agree that it is unknown.

twyvel wrote:

Secondly, Re: "a matter purely of faith". Given that nondualism cannot be proven to ?'others' does not mean an individual cannot ?'know' that it is the truth as opposed to believing it is, even though that knowing may not be of a familiar kind.

No, here you're quite wrong. Non-dualism provides no basis for asserting that any experience is objectively true, even personal experience. There is nothing in non-dualism that can assure someone that his personal experience is anything other than a delusion. As such, even self-reflection or personal transcendence or whatever provides no basis for asserting the truth of non-dualism, even for the person experiencing that reflection or transcendence.

twyvel wrote:

And the ?'knowing' of nondualism, or unity consciousness etc. can also be ?'knowing' in the usual sense in terms of reflection, e.g. In a similar fashion that one ?'knows' they have observed a landscape yesterday at Mount Effer, through memory, they can ?'know' in retrospect from dualism (as much as anyone can 'know' anything from memory) that they have been in a nondual state, if it can be called a state., and if it can be stated in that manner.

No. No one can recognize that they have been in a non-dual state, since there can be no such thing as "experience," as we understand it, in a non-dualistic universe. Thus we are just as entitled to conclude that any memory of having been in a non-dualistic state is the result of a delusion as we are to conclude that it is a genuine legacy of a trip to a non-dualistic state.

twyvel wrote:

As such the existence of nondualism is not, "a matter purely of faith" as you say. For people who know nondualism (universal consciousness, etc) it can be a fact of knowledge for them, from retrospection , memory etc., and from being it.

No. No one can "know" non-dualism, because there can be no such thing as "knowledge," as we understand it, in a non-dualistic universe. Thus we are just entitled to conclude that any "knowledge" of non-dualism is the result of a delusion as we are to conclude that it is a genuine "knowing" of non-dualism.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Quote:

Jonat3

I have added some words to your quotation for reflection.

<< All things science comes up with would indeed only be observations. According to you observation of an object may not equal the reality of the object. That can be quite true. It has to be noted that even though science is only descriptive in nature, it is atleast accurate enough to allow us to manipulate the OBSERVATION OF THE universe.>>

The ?'observation of the universe' cannot be manipulated for an observation includes all manipulations and manipulators, i.e. there is nothing outside an observation to do any manipulating, i.e. the manipulation IS the observation. An observation simply is what it is.

Smile

0 Replies

Frank

If it is possible that nondualism, universal consciousness, unity consciousness (or god) exists and can be known (not necessarily subject?-object knowing) to exist then it is possible that there are some people who do not merely believe nondualism (or god) exists but ?'known' it. That would not be a belief or a belief system as you call it.

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

Are you suggesting that I'm wrong to eliminate unknown forms of proof because I don't know if they exist? I fear we're treading very closely to the Rumsfeldian notion of the "unknown unknowns" here. "Person-to-person transmission of the true nature of reality" -- whatever that might be -- may very well prove, beyond question, the truth or falsity of non-dualism. But if it is not a "manner of proof known to man," then I think we can at least agree that it is unknown.

It may be an unknown to you and it may be an unknown to me, but how can we say that it is an unknown to ?'man' in general if we cannot claim to know what others know?

If I remember correctly joefromchicago you acknowledged on the other thread that it is possible that there exist other kinds of ?'knowing', other then ?'knowing' from subject---object dualism. Nondualism as I understand it is not ?'knowing' >>from a distance<<. Bare that in mind.

Quote:

There is nothing in non-dualism that can assure someone that his personal experience is anything other than a delusion.

The same can be said of your present state. Nondualism is apparently more ?'real' then this present dualist one. It reduces and shows this so called ?'awake' state to be the illusion that it is, (apparently).

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, that observation--that science enables us to manipulate the observations of the universe because of the accuracy of its descriptions--reflects for me one of my major metaphysical difficulties. That is the question: if rationalism and science do not reflect in their models a correspondence with reality, why do they sometimes work? Why do our bridges not collapse? The only answer I can come up with is that those descriptions are not PHILOSOPHICAL understandings of Reality itself, only accurate descriptions of its manifestations as humans see them. The naive realism (or naturalism) of science is sufficient to manipulate, as you say, the common sense manifestations of Reality, but not sufficient to "know" them. Now mysticism, as I understand it, is not concerned to know the essential nature of the World, only the nature of experience, of the Reality of our existence of our true nature.
By the way, someone said (I can't find it) that he had no need for "metaphysics." I beg to differ. Every philosophy rests on some set of metaphysical presumptions, be it those of naive realism, platonic idealism, epistemolotical monism, absolute idealism, subjectivistic immediatism, determinism, pluralism, etc. etc.. I believe the speaker was using the term in its vulgar modern sense, that of the New Age culture.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

It may be an unknown to you and it may be an unknown to me, but how can we say that it is an unknown to ?'man' in general if we cannot claim to know what others know?

I don't believe I ever made that claim. Certainly, if a manner of proof is known to someone, and that someone makes it known to others, then I am quite prepared to say that I know what others know. If, on the other hand, that person keeps such knowledge a secret, then it may be known to a man, but not to mankind in general.

twyvel wrote:

If I remember correctly joefromchicago you acknowledged on the other thread that it is possible that there exist other kinds of ?'knowing', other then ?'knowing' from subject---object dualism. Nondualism as I understand it is not ?'knowing' >>from a distance<<. Bare that in mind.

You remember in error. I never made such a claim that there exists any kind of "knowing" apart from subject-object dualism -- at least to the extent that we can "know" anything apart from such manner of knowing. There may be hundreds of different kinds of knowing in any number of conceivable universes, but it would be impossible to "know" them according to our own methods of knowledge, or even to know about them.

twyvel wrote:

The same can be said of your present state. Nondualism is apparently more ?'real' then this present dualist one. It reduces and shows this so called ?'awake' state to be the illusion that it is, (apparently).

Apparently it's more real (apparently)? That's two more "apparentlys" than one would normally expect from any kind of defense of a system of "knowledge." If non-dualism's confidence in reality is reduced to probabilistic estimations of what is "apparently" true, then I'll stick with dualism.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Frank

If it is possible that nondualism, universal consciousness, unity consciousness (or god) exists and can be known (not necessarily subject?-object knowing) to exist then it is possible that there are some people who do not merely believe nondualism (or god) exists but ?'known' it. That would not be a belief or a belief system as you call it.

When are you "believers" ever going to learn that you cannot simply re-define words so that you can use them in an inappropriate way?

I cannot tell you how many Christians I have debated who have told me they also can "know" there is a God -- using that same, almost embarrassingly, illogical reasoning.

You are immersed in this belief system of yours -- and have been touting it for the three years that I have been on-line.

I cannot know what you "know" and what you "do not know" -- but listening to your words gives me a pretty strong clue -- and Twyvel, most of your posts sound like someone wanting to deny the obvious.

0 Replies

truth
If anybody has read my last post, they may be puzzled by (among other things) an error: "accuracy of its manipulations" should be "accuracy of its descriptions." I made the correction in the post. Sorry.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, what you say of Twyvel applies to me as well, i.e., that we appear to be trying to deny "the obvious." Remember, we are discussing philosophical--metaphysical, epistemological matters, not common sense riddles. What you call the obvious is what most people call common sense, and philosophically this "naive realism" is the most repudiated of epistemologies. It is virtually obsolete in philosophy but omnipresent in everyday thought. We are pretty much talking past each other in philosophical discussions, as seen most painfully in the above discussions of "knowing." Everyone seems to be giving the same terms different meanings. I think Tywvel will agree with me that our principal object of discussion is the nature of human experience and how that nature when "known" gives us "knowledge" of our true nature and our connection with Reality. That is VERY different, as I understand it, from yours and Joe's object of discussison. Therefore continual misunderstandings that are mistaken for disagreements.

0 Replies

This is an old and intriguing question and of course we all KNOW we have a lot of Free Will, or certainly some or at least a little...well, I myself do anyway!

I am not sure how valid using quantum effects as an argument for the existence of Free Will is. The heads of pins are subject to such effects and I have never heard a successful argument concluding, in the affirmative, towards the existence of thoughtful decision making pinheads. Besides, quantum effects work at the atomic level at best. Above this level atoms, molecules, and much larger structures such as proteins and enzymes behave according to the laws of probability and averages-- the larger the quantity of matter the higher the possibility it will behave in a predictable manner, given certain conditions. A drop of acid and a drop of base will always produce a drop of water and the requisite salt. Cells and their contents contain enough amassed atoms to negate "quantum effects". Reductionism, does not seem to work for reasons I will come to shortly.

Centroles' example of people exposed only to poverty and terrorist indoctrination not being able to change their destinies is similar to the example of criminals not being responsible for their actions because they lack Free Will (This might be more satisfactorily applied to the lady spilling McDonald's Hot coffee into her lap--it was just fate, and the conditions leading up to this event, being unalterable, allow no fault to be assigned.). On a regular basis people recognize and accordingly adjust their environment in response to the "look ahead" feature that our species has developed

Genes begetting like genes equally fails as cause for the rejection of the existence of Free Will simply because of the frequent occasions involving mutations. Also, to argue that "everything we think and feel is a direct by product of things beyond our realm of control." tests credulity. Surely, even a bird, using its innate ability and instincts while building a nest, makes a conscious decision as to which twig to choose when constructing its nest.

But therein lies the question. At what point do the atoms' or sub-atomic particles' sum become greater than that of their individual parts? I suspect Free Will is a product of evolution just as life itself. Evolution began with the universe's "big bang"-- pure energy condensing into sub-atomic particle leading to atoms of elements evolving into the phenomenon of life itself. Just as life allowed the universe to "know itself", it's increased complexity and development of sensor's to sample the exterior environment has evolved neural tissue capable of analysis and resultant action we recognize as thought and decision.

Obviously, I believe in Free Will. But I could be wrong. Perhaps it's an anthropic invention, after all, if Free Will does not exist what is the value of moral behavior? Indeed, perhaps the fact that we are even able to argue its existence is testimony towards the argument in the affirmative. Do we have the ability to argue about a concept that questions our ability to argue, to disagree even with ourselves? If there is no Free Will, then we must accept each individual's behavior at face value. I believe the opposite. My belief requires individuals to be responsible for their actions. But if Free Will is non-existent then our justice system and civilization demand that we at least pretend.

Daniel C. Dennett's latest book covers this subject well. He brings up the major arguments against Free Will and presents counter arguments. In "Freedom Evolves" I think he makes a successful case for Free Will.

JM

0 Replies

truth
I agree that we must proceed AS IF there were free will. Notice I did not say as if our will is free, meaning unimpeded by external restraints or internal inhibitions. "Free will" is a metaphysical category while the latter is a political and psychological one. I also agree that when we wish to "explain" some phenomenon we do so causally (or, in a minority of cases, functionally). We look for the phenomenon's necessary and sufficient antecedent conditions. This, however, is no argument for the metaphysical category of "determinism. As I said elsewhere, causality is how we think, not necessarily how the universe works. We can argue forever for or against the two metaphysical claims, yet act as if our will is free (indeed, we wouldn't bother to argue without that assumption), and look for explanations primarily through causal analysis.

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

It may be an unknown to you and it may be an unknown to me, but how can we say that it is an unknown to ?'man' in general if we cannot claim to know what others know?

Quote:
I don't believe I ever made that claim.

I did not say you made a claim that you know what others know.

Quote:

Certainly, if a manner of proof is known to someone, and that someone makes it known to others, then I am quite prepared to say that I know what others know. If, on the other hand, that person keeps such knowledge a secret, then it may be known to a man, but not to mankind in general.

Correct, so you agree. As long as one human knows X, X it is not unknown to mankind.

Quote:

If I remember correctly joefromchicago you acknowledged on the other thread that it is possible that there exist other kinds of ?'knowing', other then ?'knowing' from subject---object dualism. Nondualism as I understand it is not ?'knowing' >>from a distance<<. Bare that in mind.

Quote:
You remember in error. I never made such a claim that there exists any kind of "knowing" apart from subject-object dualism -- at least to the extent that we can "know" anything apart from such manner of knowing. There may be hundreds of different kinds of knowing in any number of conceivable universes, but it would be impossible to "know" them according to our own methods of knowledge, or even to know about them.

Reread the above. I did not say that you made a claim that there exists any kind of knowing apart from subject----object dualism. I said you acknowledged that it is "possible".

Here's the exchange I was referring to:

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:50 am Post: 440524 -

twyvel>>"I think nondualism posits a different kind of knowing; it is not knowing as a subject knows an object, it is knowing as in "being";<<

joefromchicago>>That's fine, twyvel; I have no objection to nondualism as positing a "different kind of knowing."
On the other hand, I have a big problem with explaining nondualism by traditional logic. After all, if traditional logic (e.g. the kind of modus ponens syllogisms that you used in your previous post) is based upon "traditional" kinds of knowing, then why should I be convinced that my logic applies to your universe (or that your logic applies to my universe)?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14696&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120
[bolding added]

Point is, it is possible. But if you have changed your mind in the past mouth or so and are no longer opened to the positing of a different kind of knowing then you are in the same camp as Frank. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

Apparently it's more real (apparently)? That's two more "apparentlys" than one would normally expect from any kind of defense of a system of "knowledge." If non-dualism's confidence in reality is reduced to probabilistic estimations of what is "apparently" true, then I'll stick with dualism.

Yes, I didn't need that extra ?'apparently'. If I knew nondualism like I think some know I would be stating it as a fact of personal knowledge. But then again I might not be interested in doing so.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, what you say of Twyvel applies to me as well, i.e., that we appear to be trying to deny "the obvious." Remember, we are discussing philosophical--metaphysical, epistemological matters, not common sense riddles. What you call the obvious is what most people call common sense, and philosophically this "naive realism" is the most repudiated of epistemologies. It is virtually obsolete in philosophy but omnipresent in everyday thought. We are pretty much talking past each other in philosophical discussions, as seen most painfully in the above discussions of "knowing." Everyone seems to be giving the same terms different meanings. I think Tywvel will agree with me that our principal object of discussion is the nature of human experience and how that nature when "known" gives us "knowledge" of our true nature and our connection with Reality. That is VERY different, as I understand it, from yours and Joe's object of discussison. Therefore continual misunderstandings that are mistaken for disagreements.

JL

As you know, I seldom take issue with the way you state the items at issue here. But for the last three years, here and over in Abuzz, Twyvel, whom I consider a decent, well-intentioned, intelligent individual, regularly states his/her position in a way that is substantially different from the way you do.

Twyvel has developed a complex belief system that has NO MORE BASIS in fact or evidence than...Christianity...for example.

I think it is necessary, both from the standpoint of consistency on my part and from the standpoint of reasonable discussion of the issue, to mention that from time to time -- and often, on occasions.

This is one of those occasions.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, you are right in noting a difference between Tywvel's and my emphases in discussions. More than me, Twyvel stresses, indeed rarely departs from, his/her insight into the value of nondualism. But I would not describe his/her general thesis as a complex belief system (I think we've gone into this before). It is a simple insight, simple in that it is not complex. Instead it is an incredibly subtle perspective, that he/she has taken from the mystical literature. If Twyvel had "developed" this perspective all by him/herself, I would be sitting at his/her feet.

0 Replies

Centroles said:

Quote:

I view determinism as the path to compassion and understanding of fellow human beings. Only when you stop viewing yourself as morally superior, more good, than others can you put yourselves in their perspective and emphatize with others that you previously viewed as "bad". And only then can you understand the social roots that lead to problematic behavior.

And also:

Quote:

those that don't believe in heaven or god and thus have no motivation for behaving moral still do so. And those that choose to ignore the evidence in order to hang on to their belief in god will undoubtedly do the same in realtion to any evidence that goes against the notion of free will.

Hence, my point that determinism is not the ONLY path to compassion is supported. And your idea that it IS seems contradicted by your assertion that people will ignore determinism, which in turn contradicts your assertion that determinism is necessary for moral awareness.

And concluded:

Quote:

...you have no basis for suggesting that me stating evidence that the concept of self, of free will too is an illusion would lead to the deteriaration of morals or of society.... What's worse is that that arguement in addition to being unfounded is also clearly not what this thread was created to discuss. If you wish to debate it, lets do so in another thread.

I'm not the only one dealing in unfounded speculation. And your post on the utopian consequences of determinism pre-dates mine. But fair enough; I retire from the field, bloody but unbowed. I've made my unfounded speculations, and leave it to others to make up their own minds.

Oops. I mean, follow their pre-determined paths.

0 Replies

truth
Greyfan, your revisit to Centroles main theses has provoked some responses in me to the relationship between determinism and responsibililty. Centroles argues that we are not responsible because of the deterministic nature of our lives, i.e., our actions, abilities, and achievements, as well as our deficiencies and failures, are "determined" by factors beyond our control. Therefore we are deserving of compassion from our fellows as they are from us. Since noone has control who's to blame? At the same time, noone can receive approbation for their virtues and achievements, since they too are beyond one's control. There is clearly some value in Centroles' position, as well as dire deficiencies, since if we accept it, we can't assign either blame or credit to anyone with the result that motivation to regulate one's behavior, against "bad" or for "good" is mitigated or altogether eliminated. At the time I see little value in a religion that stresses free will, when the freedom entailed is defined as the property of an ego/self, an entity able to will its actions. I do not believe in the reality of an ego/self. Centroles' point that people generally deny or ignore determinism is true, but it is because to do so is to deny both the freedom and the reality of the ego/self. I think that you are right to argue that determinism is not the only path to compassion. I agree with the Buddhist who teach that loss of ego is the path to compassion (empathy). There IS freedom, as I've suggested at least twice elsewhere, but that freedom is not the freedom of an ego/self; it is the freedom of the "true self," what the Hindus call the Atman of each individual and the Buddhists the (terms like) Original Mind, Big Mind, Universal Mind, Buddha Mind, Essential Mind, etc.). These terms refer, as I understand them, to the link between the individual and nature (the cosmos, the universe, all else), something that can only be understood by means of mystical insight. This has nothing to do with "belief" or "unfounded speculation." It reflects a slant on ordinary experience, a down-to-earth perspective, not an otherworldly visit to a neverland of saints, ghosts, and other "new age spiritual" entities.

0 Replies

Thanks JLNobody

We are all synthesisers and plagiarists, Smile

whether we know it or not. "The weights of the dead hangs on our shoulders",and all that stuff.

Regarding positions and issues that are not specifically ?'god' related and deal more with questions concerning the true nature of the ?'self----no-self', as is the case with nondualism, and as is the topic of this thread with its question of ?'free will', and who has it, if anyone, Frank tends to make blanket statements whitewashing everything with, "Its all beliefs" which I think is a dismissal of those arguments/positions without inquiring into the details and specific points made, some of which are observations, insights and intuitions.

Are insights and intuitions beliefs? Well, I think initial insights and intuitions are not beliefs, (they're observations) but the ?'remembrance' of them can and often develop into and take the form of beliefs, same with observations. However ?'observations' themselves are not beliefs, (not even the observations of beliefs, dualistically speaking) (nondually speaking they're just observations), unless one takes the position that ?'everything' is a belief including the observation of this X and including, 2+ 2 = 4, but then there would be no ?'beliefs' as there would be no distinctions. Hey, maybe we are getting somewhere, entering the realm of nondualism via the loss of distinctions, Very Happy

Anyway, as Frank well knows, I have not claimed what I have said is not based in belief, in fact I use words and phrases such as, I believe, think, suspect, imagine, and ?'apparently' and supposedly etc. to the point where joefromchicago has accused me of over caveating, Smile

Point is, as you have said, it is not all beliefs, contrary to what Frank may believe.

{And let it be noted that I think what underlies Frank's ?'blanket statements' is a strong deep seated belief system of its own, i.e. >>No human ?'knows' anything about any gods or transcendent states (nondualism) or the true nature of reality<<,.and includes Frank as a member in the group of BELIEVERS.}

[edited]

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know