Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

truth
Twyvel, you are most welcome. Frank's observation that you and I are in some ways different may--I don't know, we'll have to ask him--reflect the fact that I rarely focus on the issue of nondualism. This is because I often think dualistically even when I talk about the virtues of non-dualism. I'm not faulting myself for this; it's what all philosophers (e.g., Wm. James) do who argue for the virtues of nondualism. The fact that you can wax within a consistently nondualistic framework--one that throws me off temporarily on occasion--indicates that either you have a natural talent for that perspective or you meditate a lot more than I. I have noticed that when I get too cerebral, too attached to languge, categories, and logic, I lose the ability to "get with" your discourse. What I do then is swing my chair around away from the PC and meditate, i.e., just passively (nondualistically) observe the flow of sensations without trying to select or order them. Then when I swing around again, I feel better able--more detached from categories--to intuit your meaning. When I said to Frank that you must have taken your perspective from the mystical LITERATURE, I could only have been partly correct. You would ALSO have to meditate to prepare yourself to understand that literature in more than a superficial (surface) way. Is that so?
By the way, I read a wonderful and famous nondualistic dictum of Meister Eckhart last night: "We see God with the same eye that God sees us." This can only be understood from a nondualistic frame of mind. I hope noone asks me what it means. My answer may seem downright crazy. In fact, I can't at this moment remember what it is; yet it was SO CLEAR last night. No matter, it will come back to me when I am free to not try.

Sorry, Twyvel, nice try -- but no cigar.

I freely acknowledge that I do not KNOW what you know or do not know -- and I am pretty sure I have included that equivocation in just about every comment I've ever made on the issue. Your argument here is absurd.

All I can do is to evaluate what you say -- and contrary to what you are alleging here, you DO tend to state things as though they are facts -- rather than guesses on your part. It has to be obvious to everyone that you are absolutely certain you KNOW the reality of existence -- whether or not it is dual or non-dual or whatever. It also is obvious to anyone who has read your posts that you are absolutely certain that there is a "someplace" people go to after death -- and that "near death experiences" is proof of that.

To all that crap, I say "NONSENSE!"

It may all be so -- but every indication is that for you to suppose you know any of it -- is blather.

In any case, if it makes you feel any better about yourself to suppose that I "believe" stuff -- please feel free to do so. No skin off my nose.

But I defy you to cite even one sentence in any of my posts where I talk about the things I "believe." And don't limit yourself to just this thread -- you are free to cite a reference from any thread here in A2K or over in Abuzz. Show me anything I've ever written that indicates that I either KNOW the answers to Ultimate Questions about REALITY -- or that I am willing to make GUESSES about those answers.

(Word to the wise: Don't even try. You won't find one.)

I talk about what I think, suppose, evaluate...and the like. And any statements that I make that might seem categorical to you -- please call them to my attention and I will retract them immediately or clean them up so that there is no misunderstanding. I assure you, if there are any, they were the result of carelessness on my part.



Further, I could not care less about what you do or do not "believe", Twyvel. And you should not care what others think about what you believe. It is your guess -- and you are entitled to guess however you

JLNobody "We see God with the same eye that God sees us."

A beautiful saying.

I see JLNobody with the same eyes that JLNobody sees me.

I see Frank with the same awareness that Frank sees me.

I see my cat with the same awareness that my cat sees.

If the cat looks at me ignoring her ego and body sensations and I do the same, what is there to be seen? Is the skin boundary brokered? Do I become her and she become me? Do we fall in love?

Frank wrote:

that others do not know anything about any gods.

I use as many caveats as I can. And to my knowledge I have never said as a matter of fact that nondualism is the truth, that nondualism is a fact of knowledge. Though I think nondualism is the true nature of this existence.

And I don't know what your talking about re: the after death thing.



Just substitute the word "believe" for "guess" in your above statement and there will be plenty. And of course a statement doesn't have to include the word "guess" or "believe" etc. to considered to be a guess or belief.



I agree with your advice Frank, generally speaking, though it may not be feasible or possible, since believes/guesses by nature are on shaky ground, and as such are susceptible to change and influence from others, (one would hope) which I would think is for the most part a good thing given that most beliefs are probably wrong, but then probably most influences of beliefs are wrong as well.

truth
Frank and Tywvel, I hope the two of you appreciate each other. Each is the stone on which the other sharpens his sword.

Well, I suppose when you said "we cannot claim to know what others know," I assumed that "we" meant "you and I." I wasn't aware that you were using the royal "we."


That's a fine linguistic quibble, twyvel, but I'm sure you must be aware that that's not what I said.


As I said above: "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."


It is "possible" for there to be other kinds of knowing in the same way that it is "possible" for objects to fall up or for the sun to rise in the west.


It's not that you didn't need that extra "apparently," it's that you should not have needed any "apparentlys." After all, you were asserting the "reality" of non-dualism; if it's as real as dualism (or, as you claim, more real), then why say "apparently" at all? Aren't you dealing with reality rather than appearance?


This is a farcical claim. You constantly assert that nondualism is the "truth," except when someone like Frank or me challenges you, at which point you quickly resort to evasion and equivocation. For instance, in the previous quotation, you imply that other people know that nondualism is a fact. Yet you've never once laid out the basis for this kind of "knowledge," except in the thread on the "existence of the self," where you immediately disavowed your attempted proof when confronted with the barrenness of your epistemology.

joefromchicago



I "imply" that others know the truth of this existence. Correct.

I think, suspect, speculate, surmise, believe, etc. nondualism is the true nature of this existence.

Here's what you do:
You write:

"You constantly assert that nondualism is the "truth,"

then

"For instance, in the previous quotation, you imply that other people know that nondualism is a fact."

You go from "assert" in the first sentence.

To "imply" in the second sentence.

You are inconsistent. You cannot use an example in which you cliam I have "implied' something to claim I have made an assertion.



Do I make statements as if they were affirmations? Yes.
Does Frank make statements as if they were affirmations? Yes.
Does joefromchicago make statements as if they were affirmations? Yes.

We all do.

Here are some examples:

Frank wrote:
[Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:29 am Post: 490319]
"Twyvel has developed a complex belief system that has NO MORE BASIS in fact or evidence than...Christianity...for example."

I know that this statement is taken out of context but there is nothing in that whole single post to indicate that Franks statement is anything but an affirmation. But I know Frank is not making a categorical statement. It is a guess of Frank's and I understand that, though many other people reading it might not understand that Frank is making a guess. And I admit, the same goes for some of what I write, but Franks criticism of my writings being too affirmative is a self indictment.

Joefromchicago wrote:
[Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:35 pm Post: 489692 -]
" 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.

The first sentence:

"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."

That is not true.

And there was no "disavow". I don't know have many times it was pointed out to you on the other thread by JLNobody, fresco and myself, that nondualism cannot be proven, but it was many times. And unlike you we knew it could not be proven long before the thread began as such we would know better then to make any attempt at proving it. The only one trying to prove anything in fresco's thread was you. You were arguing a strawman there and if you pick it up gain you will be arguing a strawman here.

Nondualism is its own proof. There isn't , >dualism< a proof , and >nondualism< . Nondualism IS the proof. But that's nothing out of the ordinary. No one can prove to you what chocolate pudding tastes like, all they can do is give you descriptions. To know

What is the basis for this belief?


Without question. But then dualism allows me to make categorical statements such as that. I am, then, not being inconsistent in making categorical statements while asserting that you cannot, because logic, which permits such categorical statements, rests on a dualistic foundation. Nondualism, however, provides no such foundation. Hence, you are not allowed to make categorical statements unless you first accept dualism.


Quite easily, actually. If I am "one with everything," then I have no basis for referencing anything outside of myself, since I am all-encompassing and infinite. Hence, in a nondualistic universe, there is no such thing as cause and effect, substance, space, or time -- all the necessary prerequisites of what we term "experience." As such, there may be something that, in a nondualist universe, passes for "experience" or "knowledge," but we cannot have any conception of what those things might be. Even "self-knowledge," as we understand it, would be impossible, since our belief in our own selves is based on our belief of a world that is not ourselves. Indeed, if one were to pass over, in some sense, into a nondualist state, there would be no way to "experience" it or "know" that it happened, since any "experience" or "knowledge" of nondualism has no parallel in a dualistic system. At most, one can assert a belief, based on faith alone, that such a thing occurred.


You're right. I have absolutely no clue what it means to live nondualistically. But then, neither do you. More to the point, you can't know what it's like to live nondualistically.


What is the basis for your conclusion?


That is pure nonsense. If nondualism is "self-proving," how would anyone know?


You cannot experience nondualism; nondualism is the negation of experience.


That's ridiculous. If proofs are individual, then my proof of dualism is just as valid as anyone else's proof of nondualism. Yet nondualism, because it posits an all-encompassing and infinite oneness, cannot co-exist with dualism. Thus nondualism must claim to be true for everyone. My point is that there is no basis for substantiating that claim.

truth
I'm making the following statement without reviewing the foregoing, so please forgive me if I've overlooked relevant statements. It seems to me that we are confusing two kinds of dichotomy: pluralism vs. monism and dualism vs. nondualism. When I look around the room I am sitting in I can perceive the situation--pluralistically--as one in which there is me, the chair, the walls, the ceiling, the floor, etc. etc., or I can see it--monistically--as a single context of which I am a part: in the latter, the unitary context is the reality of the moment. And of course this context nests within larger contexts (e.g., the entire house) which nests within a broader context all the way to the universe. Dualism vs. nondualism refers to the distinctions between knower and known, perceiver and perceived, subject and object, up and down, in and out, etc. etc. Nondualism recognizes only knowing, perceiving, and the artificiality and relativity of subject and object and up/down and in/out.

i think we're getting WAY too caught up in semantics. can you post the reasons why you believe what you believe instead, perhaps arguments for specific beliefs?

truth
Centroles, don't take this as a criticism of you personally, but the phrase, "it's a matter of semantics" is usually a very stale and vacuous platitude. Your very statement is itself a semantical exercise. My distinctions between pluralism vs. monism and dualism vs. nondualism were intended to clear up confusions, not to add to them. But one would have had to make an effort to see my point. I'm afraid many of us (including myself) too often pass over the hard stuff. I know we are here primarily for the enjoyment of it, but please don't dismiss an argument with the gloss: it's just semantics! (if this is not what you have done, and if your remarks were not directed to my statement, I apologise. But the statement still had to be made as a general commentary on much of our behavior).
I started my comment with the acknowledgement that I might have been off the mark for not having reviewed contributions made much earlier. For that I apologise as well.

Will was freed in the movie, but the real one behind the part has recently died.

i wasn't responding to your statements in particular JLN. but i was responding to the general route this thread has taken from a debate over the reasons and why you believe what you believe to specifically what terms you use to qualify your beliefs.

this may be productive for the handful of us here that actually have a through understanding of nondualism and the reasons that support this theory but the vast majority of people aren't already aware of what this theory means or encompasses.

if you do wish to use these terms, please atleast take the time to explain them and the theories that support them.

truth
Centroles, that is exactly what my post intended to do, to clarify the meaning of the terms used, and Tywvel and I (as well as Fresco in the context of other issues) have been trying for months to support (as well as possible) our claims for the importance of nondualistic perception.

If your posts were meant to simplify the arguement, then yours weren't the posts that my comments were directed at.

But perhaps, it would be wise to put to rest the philosophical theories since they are so numerous, varied, unclear and have no scientific basis upon which they rest and steer this debate back to it's scientific roots.

I contend that nothing in science points to randomness in the universe, all phenomena that are currently explained are done so with a simple causal relationship. And a universe governed by causation is one that is predetermined.

I am going to quote another explanation of what I am trying to say that was simply stated better. The source is...

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=5261

Words of a poor soul...

"This is somewhat of a plea for help, as I've contracted this damn awful concept one or two years ago and I haven't been able to shake it since. On the contrary, the more I think about it and read upon, I find myself sinking in quicksand, and my everyday life is slipping away from me. I become more self conscious of my activities, and am rendered impotent as to making any value judgments.

This paralysis is called hard determinism.

The actual argument is very simple, but counterintuitive because all of our lives we have been asked to make choices. We do in fact make choices, but they are all determined wholly outside of our control. We are merely puppets on strings. Well, this is a little off on a dramatic tangent, to the argument:

You are born. Two cases:
a) You are a tabula rasa, then everything imprinted onto you from agents outside of yourself.
b) You are not a tabula rasa. Only part of "you" is obtained from agents outside of yourself. However, the part you are born with comes from other factors as well (say, the human genetic algorithm which embeds you with instincts, for instance). What I am saying is that when you are born, the data that is in you as a newborn is supplied from outside of "you".

So, you're a newborn and so far all that defines you has come from outside factors. You've just "stepped into" this new body. Now, fast forward to your current age, and you're face with two cups, tea and coffee. Make a decision on which to have.

The argument of hard determinism is that you do not actually have a choice. The choice you make will be based on your life experience and what you were born with. All these characteristics come from an outside factor, through the argument of causality. There is a reason you prefer tea to coffee (if that is your preference). This reason did not come from you. You were born with a taste for tea. You were raised in an environment where your parents grew you up on tea. Both of these are obviously outside of your control.

Or perhaps you read an article on the benefits of tea. This reading action is of your own accord, yes? You decided to read the article? No. Somehow, the idea was engrained into you that reading research reports of the substances you put into your body is good. Someone told you reading is good. You had no control over this opinion forming within you. You might say, well, I have an opinion as to the benefits of reading, which I used in judging the benefits of reading research reports. All of this is the same argument: by causality, all that currently makes up "you" is traceable to agents outside of yourself. You have been shaped by all things outside of your control.

If you extend this argument, you'll see that there is not possible way to randomly decide in tea or coffee. It's not satisfactory for me to argue it, you have to think about it a little on your own for a convincing result. Follow the above logic out. But, for example, if I have a tea preference, but am aware a hard determinist is hounding me with his bothersome questions, I will choose coffee just to prove him wrong. Ah, this choice was made because of the intrusion of the determinist and of my preference to tea. Both outside of my control, thus I never had any free will in choosing coffee.

Now, a way that some tried to argue against determinism is with quantum mechanics, which disproved classical physics. However, this only concerns atomic behavior, and on a macroscopic scale of a human being, quantum randomness does not in any way interfere with hard determinism. The universe it itself might not be causal and deterministic, but human beings themselves (amongst other things) are.


This concept is very troubling. The first immediate consequence is that you have a set path in life which you will follow. All the decisions you will make are inevitable, arising from a snapshot of the world at the moment of your birth, for instance. The only consolation you might have is that this path is unknown to you, and it seems like you are making decisions. Even though when faced with tea or coffee, the decision is inevitable, you still have to actively think about a decision, to reach the inevitable conclusion.

Furthermore, there is a total breakdown of the punishment and merit system. If someone becomes a criminal, you might want to jail her parents or agents that created that person, as opposed to the actual person herself. She was merely a victim to the inevitable path of her life. Similarly, if someone discovers a cure for cancer, it was an inevitable consequence of the environment and genetic lottery. He has done nothing extraordinary is finding the cure, having merely followed the causal path of his life.


I can see no way around hard determinism. The only real comfort is that I sometimes forget about it, and actually think that I'm choosing and living freely. Furthermore, whenever I do something stupid, I can tell myself that it was meant to be, not in any mystical fate way, but by a purely logical argument. However, the fact that we're all slaves to determinism and ultimately only being led along a path outside of choice is painfully troubling. Furthermore, it's easy to imagine a comprehensive scanning technology that takes a snapshot of a roughly isolated system (say earth at the instance of one's birth) and play a simulation at increased speed, thereby predicting an individual's life, with perfect accuracy.

I would be very grateful if someone could disprove hard determinism.
In the absence of that, can you please tell me how you deal with it "

I have scanned this reference and I reiterate my points made previously. Trivial binary choices between tea and coffee are irrelevant to the moral contexts in which we talk about "free will". We can only speak of the utility of the concept not its logical validity (which is based on based on reductionist principles of "causality" in closed physical systems.)

The universe does not appear to be deterministic, either on a quantum level or a macro level thanks to chaos. This is not a clockwork universe.

While our lives are certainly affected by events beyond our control and our reactions to these events are greatly influenced by previous experiences, the conscious entity generated by our brains KNOWS that it is influenced by its own biology and experiences, and can take its compulsions into consideration when making decisions.

We do indeed have free will, although it is sometimes limited by biology and circumstance.

How can this possibly square with your previously stated belief in a non-dualistic universe? After all, there can be no such thing as cause-and-effect in a universe where all is one.

And how's the search going for the miraculous Lazarus dog?

Centroles

You have presented a logical argument for determinism but could it be that you are "trapped" by your logic. Could it be that a further extension of logic would "set you free"?

This will probably be dismissed as overly simplistic and grossly reductionist but I'm still compelled to plunge ahead: Is it not illogical to insist that human events are deterministic while natural events(such as snowstorms and hurricanes) are not????????