Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

truth
The reason I have praised the contributions you and Joe have made to discussions of dualism vs. non-dualism is that you provide Fresco, Twyvel and myself with the opportunity to do some reality testing. If it were not for you misguided guys Laughing

, the three of us would be preaching to the choir and enjoy perhaps a warm fuzzy feeling of being right because there are no grounds for doubting it. I know that I am not terribly capable of challenging my own views--just as you and Joe have not challenged your own dualistic presumptions despite the unholy trinity's proddings.
You have put me in the trap of distinguishing my position from that of the Christian whose "words" appear to be identical to mine. Funny that I don't feel in the least trapped. Maybe I should, but I don't. Twyvel's insistent and obviously significant statement that the observer cannot be observed and that therefore one should recognize one's unity with all objects of perception goes unanswered by the two of you. Why is that? If he had told me that forty years ago, I would have had a spiritual aneuryism.
Joe's claim that we are piratically imposing new assumptions on a discussion that has already got its own assumptions in place begs the question--as Fresco has made me realize. To me the base assumption should be Reality itself (that which is the case). Following that, an implicit problem becomes: is our best approach to Reality dualistic or non-dualistic? The problematic was there when we entered the picture; we did not present it; we recognized it. Yet Joe would argue that there is no problem except of our own making. I am willing to refrain from introducing non-dualism as an epistemological issue in threads that have no bearing on philosophical, spiritual or even scientific matters. But to do so in the aforementioned three contexts would be to impose on myself an obligation to misrepresent my understanding as a mere expression of courtesy. Joe describes us as "non-dualists who insert themselves into a discussion." Why can't it also be said that he is a "dualist who has inserted himself into a discussion?" What is it about dualism that it can be treated as a privileged, default or natural given? THAT is a valid philosophical issue. In a philosophy forum there are no privileged assumptions, not even logic and the notions of truth and reality, if there is any reasonable effort to challenge them.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

I know that I am not terribly capable of challenging my own views--just as you and Joe have not challenged your own dualistic presumptions despite the unholy trinity's proddings.

Oh, no, no, no! Cannot let you do that!

At NO POINT has I embraced the "dualistic" guess about reality. I keep as distant from that as I do from the "non-dualistic" approach.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE REALITY IS -- and I am quite comfortable acknowledging that I do not know -- and that the evidence is not persuasive in either direction.

Either approach COULD BE CORRECT -- and I have absolutely no way of determining which is.

I don't think you folks do either.

Quote:

You have put me in the trap of distinguishing my position from that of the Christian whose "words" appear to be identical to mine. Funny that I don't feel in the least trapped.

I tell you absolutely that I did not present that observation as an intended trap.

It is an observation -- and nothing more.

Quote:

Twyvel's insistent and obviously significant statement that the observer cannot be observed and that therefore one should recognize one's unity with all objects of perception goes unanswered by the two of you.

Well, two things.

One, I am not at all sure the observer cannot be observed.

But even if I became convinced that is so -- I would not have to respond to it, because I am convinced that answers to the kinds of questions that make up this area of inquiry cannot be determined with enough certainty to accept them as true. There simply are way too many variables -- and unknowns with which we must contend.

Fact is, the more I listen to you and Twyvel, the more convinced I become that what you are presenting is a belief system pure and simple.

0 Replies

truth
O.K., Frank. I understand your reasoning. I feel quite certain that IF the Catholics are right, you will be assigned to neither Heaven nor Hell. You will go to Limbo--of your own doing. Laughing

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Twyvel's insistent and obviously significant statement that the observer cannot be observed and that therefore one should recognize one's unity with all objects of perception goes unanswered by the two of you. Why is that?

Well, to begin with, I can't understand what the hell twyvel is talking about. As I mentioned in another context, this isn't a paradox, it's gibberish.

Secondly, I have a notion of "observer" and "observe" that allow for the observer to be observed. But to engage in a discussion of this point would simply transgress my all-too-recent vow not to engage in these kinds of pointless debates -- and then twyvel would call me a "hypocrite" again (even though I have already acknowledged that "I bear some responsibility" for these threads going off on non-dualist tangents: I suppose twyvel can't even accept a concession made by me).

JLNobody wrote:

What is it about dualism that it can be treated as a privileged, default or natural given? THAT is a valid philosophical issue. In a philosophy forum there are no privileged assumptions, not even logic and the notions of truth and reality, if there is any reasonable effort to challenge them.

I agree: the issue of whether or not dualism is a privileged philosophical position, in general, is a valid question. But whether dualism enjoys a privileged position in connection with a particular issue that presupposes dualism is not a valid question, since dualism's privileged position is established by the fundamental terms of debate. Instead, raising dualism's status in that kind of discussion is an irrelevant distraction, much as injecting the inevitable damnation of Papists would be irrelevant to a discussion of Roman Catholic doctrine.

0 Replies

truth
Joe, your assertion that the observer CAN be observed, as it is observing, shows that IN THIS TOPIC we cannot arrive at a resolution. That's fine; we'll still be able to talk on other topics agreeably. But let me note that Twyvel's thesis is neither gibberish nor is it paradoxical; it's a straightfoward observation. I find it fascinating as a psychological problem that some people (depending on cognitive style, I suppose) cannnot see that. On second thought, I must admit that there was a time when I could not see that as well. Regarding the matter of privilege, I still think you are begging the question. I cannot understand how an issue can be validly discussed when it presupposes a falsehood. And who is the referee who "established" the terms of debate?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

When Tywvel says that "there is unltimately no self to relate to objects" I agree because I do not SEE (at least when I'm in the right frame of mind) any self to relate to objects. And because I see no self, the "SPLIT" between self and object disappears, such that there are ultimately no "objects" as well. I do not agree with him because of the coherence of his logic or because of his empirical "evidence." I agree because he describes what I SEE.

It strikes me that this argument is akin to saying that you can't perceive the world when you close your eyes, therefore the world doesn't exist. Rolling Eyes

There are several levels of consciousness depending on which parts of the brain are engaged in creating it. Some people can undoubtedly learn to quiet the process that generate the ego/self, but I don't understand why you would conclude that such a state is somehow more "real" than the perceptions that you obtain by using your entire brain.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

You seem to be demanding that an observer must be observable (and therefore an object) in order to exist, but insisting that any such objectification disqualifies it from being the observer in question. I agree with Joe that this is nonsense. "I" am quite capable of observing that "I" exist.

Secondly, whether or not you personally can "observe" your sense of self, the process by which it is generated in the human brain has been studied quite extensively. The self can be observed in human beings as surely as we can observe atoms. We can't "see" it with our eyes but its presence is deduced from scientific observations of behavior and brain activity. Most telling is that damage to certain areas of the brain precludes the generation of particular levels of consciousness. Without the ability to generate core consciousness, extended consciousness is not possible even if autobiographical memory is intact.

Do you believe that an external, physical universe exists objectively? If not, where do you suppose that the delusions of its existence come from? Why do you suppose that 6 billion people would create a world in which they are doomed to suffer and die - if they had any choice in the matter? If the illusion of this world was not created by the poor deluded souls who foolishly believe that they are living in it, then who ultimately was responsible for creating the illusion - and why?

This brings us back to the question of free will: if I had any part in creating the illusion, there would not be so much suffering and pure stupidity. As far as I can tell I am free to evaluate situations and make decisions for myself but I neither I nor any other human being can control Fate (still haven't won the lottery). So who decides which child will die of leukemia, who will be paralyzed by a stroke, and who gets burried under tons of rubble during an earthquake?

0 Replies

Re: truth

Frank Apisa wrote:

At NO POINT has I embraced the "dualistic" guess about reality. I keep as distant from that as I do from the "non-dualistic" approach.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE REALITY IS -- and I am quite comfortable acknowledging that I do not know -- and that the evidence is not persuasive in either direction.

Either approach COULD BE CORRECT -- and I have absolutely no way of determining which is.

You do not find dualism's utter lack of logic nor the evidence of your own perceptions to be persuasive? Shocked

Millions of years of evolution have gone into producing brains whose perceptions of reality best enabled us to find food, elude predators, and entice mates. I suppose that the entire universe could all be an illusion generated by an unknown entity for some obscure purpose, provided you disregard Occam's Razor.

I agree that personal experiences related by non-dualists sound suspiciously like those of theism. Why do you suppose that is? The two belief systems seem to be mutually exclusive, but equally capable of producing absolute faith in their validity. :wink:

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Anyway, my next question would be, if the ego/self/whatever is universal (as a delusion or as reality) doesn't that suggest that thers is something that's empirically real and therefore universally observable that contributes to the perception of the self? ...

So even if we can't know that everything we think we know about our selves is corrent, we can know that there is some minute distinction of our selves from the rest of the natural world that can be empirically sensed, and for some reason, universally interpreted in the same way?

That's my question too. Where does the sense of self come from if no self exists?

Was there some kind of big bang that separated all of our minds from the collective/singularity and initiated our illusions of dualism?

0 Replies

Re: truth

Terry wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
At NO POINT has I embraced the "dualistic" guess about reality. I keep as distant from that as I do from the "non-dualistic" approach.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE REALITY IS -- and I am quite comfortable acknowledging that I do not know -- and that the evidence is not persuasive in either direction.

Either approach COULD BE CORRECT -- and I have absolutely no way of determining which is.

You do not find dualism's utter lack of logic nor the evidence of your own perceptions to be persuasive?

I may have overstated that contention just the tiniest bit -- and as I remember it, actually wrote it with a short preamble phrase that read something like "For the purposes of this thread..." For one reason or another, I removed it before posting.

In any case, I wanted to give a strong nod to the concept that we do not know -- and that even though I feel much, much more comfortable f4on the side of this issue opposed to the stance of Twyvel and JL (and to a lesser extent, Fresco) -- I certainly am not saying they ARE wrong.

My stress in this argument has always been that Twyvel, particularly, has built an elaborate belief system incorporating this element as an essential. The second essential of Twyvel's belief system has to do with what he refers to as Near Death Experiences.

Twyvel and JL are two of the most courteous posters in these forums. I honor both of them -- but strongly disagree with their stance on this issue -- BASED mostly on the "belief system" element rather than the dynamics.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Regarding the matter of privilege, I still think you are begging the question. I cannot understand how an issue can be validly discussed when it presupposes a falsehood.

Well, in a certain, limited sense, it is question begging, but then it's indispensible question-begging. For instance, in a discussion regarding English punctuation, English grammar enjoys a privileged position. Now, is that fair? Is that question-begging? Perhaps, but then the discussion would have no point if English grammar didn't have a privileged position. And anyone who raised objections based on German, Russian, Sanskrit, or Klingon grammar would be injecting an irrelevant element into the discussion.

And regarding the discussion of issues that presuppose a falsehood: re-read my examples regarding Catholic doctrine. Some might regard such doctrine as an abominable falsehood, yet that would not prevent an intelligent discussion of that topic. Likewise, people could rationally discuss the mechanics of time travel, or speculate on the possibility of life on other planets, without necessarily conceding that such travel or such life is at all possible.

JLNobody wrote:

And who is the referee who "established" the terms of debate?

I believe that the framework of the debate should be established by the initial poster. Discussions, of course, can take on lives of their own, and, to a certain extent, the contours of the debate are the result of ongoing negotiation among the participants. Anything that deviates significantly from the general topic, as established in the initial post and developed thereafter by the participants, would, I contend, be "off-topic."

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

JLNobody I know that I am not terribly capable of challenging my own views--just as you and Joe have not challenged your own dualistic presumptions despite the unholy trinity's proddings.

Quote:
Oh, no, no, no! Cannot let you do that!

At NO POINT has I embraced the "dualistic" guess about reality. I keep as distant from that as I do from the "non-dualistic" approach.

Quote:
I may have overstated that contention just the tiniest bit -- and as I remember it, actually wrote it with a short preamble phrase that read something like "For the purposes of this thread..." For one reason or another, I removed it before posting.

In any case, I wanted to give a strong nod to the concept that we do not know -- and that even though I feel much, much more comfortable f4on the side of this issue opposed to the stance of Twyvel and JL (and to a lesser extent, Fresco) -- I certainly am not saying they ARE wrong.

STRONG TENDENCY., to the point where most would consider as I do that you are in fact a material dualist, positivist; one who maintains that a physical world exists and that a 'self' exists that is separate and distinct from that world. As I stated above what you are saying now is a recent development in your position and should be stated as such.

Quote:

JLNobody
You have put me in the trap of distinguishing my position from that of the Christian whose "words" appear to be identical to mine. Funny that I don't feel in the least trapped.

Quote:
I tell you absolutely that I did not present that observation as an intended trap.

It is an observation -- and nothing more.

No, JLNobody is correct, it is a trap. You take the same technical approach to both positions stating relentless comparisons, even though nondualism is not deity based. You employ zero effort in making distinctions between positions based on the nature of 'self' and positions that claim that a god exists; often believed to be distinction and separate from a physical, material, body bound self.

We are not arguing from a theist position but you are often arguing against one. Is that a strawman I see?

If I say I know there is no observable self.

You respond with: (something like)

"Yes and that is exactly the same as what theists say, that they know there is a god." etc.

That's no even on topic.

That's no to say that there are no similarities, but your response is so broad as to be talking about the forest as a whole, when the issue at hand is the insect on a tree.

0 Replies

truth
Terry, the sheer quantity of your points, exhaust me. I may get around to addressing them, but I'm on my way now to see the movie, Cold Mountain. Let me say, however, that when dualists on these forums describe the statements made by non-duallists as "nonsense" or "gibberish" they are reflecting an important point. Gibberish indicates that the other's arguments are "not even wrong." That is important in that it reflects the INTER-PARADIGMATIC nature of our disagreements. To me a paradigm is something that cuts all the way to the bone, it is a set not only of answers or questions, but the implicit assumptions that determine what are meaningful questions and answers. We, of the two camps, occupy different paradigms which is why all our efforts to persuade the other are futile. The issue is not which is the more intelligent perspective. Bertram Russell, no dummy, used to argue with the brilliant mystic, Krishnamurti, without any resolution occuring. Yet the physicist Bohm and Krishnamurti were in virtually complete agreement. Do keep in mind, however, that Tywvel, Fresco and I understand and use both paradigms. You, Joe, Frank, and some others have understood and used only one. While this is suggestive to me, I know it's no proof of anything at all. You could respond with a comparison of the man who has only been sane and the man who has been both sane and insane.
Let me add the assurance to you that I do not suffer from insanity, as an aspiring mystic, I enjoy it.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
JLNobody I know that I am not terribly capable of challenging my own views--just as you and Joe have not challenged your own dualistic presumptions despite the unholy trinity's proddings.

Quote:
Oh, no, no, no! Cannot let you do that!

At NO POINT has I embraced the "dualistic" guess about reality. I keep as distant from that as I do from the "non-dualistic" approach.

Quote:
I may have overstated that contention just the tiniest bit -- and as I remember it, actually wrote it with a short preamble phrase that read something like "For the purposes of this thread..." For one reason or another, I removed it before posting.

In any case, I wanted to give a strong nod to the concept that we do not know -- and that even though I feel much, much more comfortable f4on the side of this issue opposed to the stance of Twyvel and JL (and to a lesser extent, Fresco) -- I certainly am not saying they ARE wrong.

Yes you did over state it Frank and more then the 'tiniest bit'.

Having a history with you affords a broader perspective. You have indeed espoused a dualistic position on many occasions, stating that you suspect that a material world exists.

I'll say that again. I suspect that a material world exists.

But I would not be floored to find that it is just an illusion.

And I have never suggested otherwise.

In any case, since all we can do is to guess on the topic, I have made no secret of how I am guessing at the moment -- and in fact, that issue was covered in the quote you just used.

Quote:

In fact at one point you claimed that you could prove that the chair your sitting on exists independent of your perceptions. Upon being challenged on that claim you recanted.

I think you are full of **** on this, Twyvel, but I am willing to give you the opportunity to cite where I did this. I'll be wainting.

I very, very, very, very, very, very seldom ever say I can prove anything -- and I seriously doubt that any such event ever occurred.

Quote:

So the first of your above statements is false as presented..

No it is not.

Quote:

STRONG TENDENCY., to the point where most would consider as I do that you are in fact a material dualist, positivist; one who maintains that a physical world exists and that a 'self' exists that is separate and distinct from that world. As I stated above what you are saying now is a recent development in your position and should be stated as such.

I have no idea of what you are saying here -- but any tendencies that I have -- or that you seem to think I have -- may be magnified by the fact that I often call your attention to the fact that you have developed a BELIEF SYSTEM here-- and when I see you posting items from your BELIEF SYSTEM as facts rather than as guesses -- I call you on them.

This seems to bother you.

You are in good company.

When theists present their guesses as fact -- I call them on it.

When atheists present their guesses as fact -- I call them on it also.

Quote:

Quote:
JLNobody
You have put me in the trap of distinguishing my position from that of the Christian whose "words" appear to be identical to mine. Funny that I don't feel in the least trapped.

Quote:
I tell you absolutely that I did not present that observation as an intended trap.

It is an observation -- and nothing more.

No, JLNobody is correct, it is a trap.

No it isn't!

If you, or JL, see it as a trap -- I suspect that has more to do with the fact that your positions simply cannot be substantiated than with any intent on my part to trap either of you.

The balance of your post, Twyvel, is nonsense.

You don't like seeing your belief system for what it is.

I can appreciate that.

But don't take it out on me.

Because just as soon as I stop laughing at the notion, I will once again call your attention to the fact that it is a belief system.

0 Replies

JL, if you can explain how we can sense a material world when nothing is there, go ahead and try. Even if we are all tied up inside a factory in a perpetual hallucination, something is causing that hallucination and it exists.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

I think you are full of **** on this, Twyvel, but I am willing to give you the opportunity to cite where I did this. I'll be wainting.

I very, very, very, very, very, very seldom ever say I can prove anything -- and I seriously doubt that any such event ever occurred.

No Frank it's not ****. It is a fact, though I don't really want to get into it unless you press me, as it was awhile ago over at Abuzz. Terry will probably remember,... Smile

My point was that your position has changed over time, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

But saying what you say: "At NO POINT has I embraced the "dualistic" guess about reality. I keep as distant from that as I do from the "non-dualistic" approach."

Is false.

And not only false because of the above but simply because you have often said that it is your guess that a physical world exists. Re: in discussions with ican and all those speculation threads.

And the above quote is a recent development of your position.

Which is quite a lovely position Frank, (if it is fully balanced, if that is possible) as you have nothing to defend, beyond the basic, "I do not know"Quite lovely indeed.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Frank wrote:

Quote:
I think you are full of **** on this, Twyvel, but I am willing to give you the opportunity to cite where I did this. I'll be wainting.

I very, very, very, very, very, very seldom ever say I can prove anything -- and I seriously doubt that any such event ever occurred.

No Frank it's not ****. It is a fact, though I don't really want to get into it unless you press me, as it was awhile ago over at Abuzz. Terry will probably remember,...

I still think you are wrong, dead wrong -- but if our positions were reversed, I would not go through all those old threads either.

Quote:

My point was that your position has changed over time, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

But saying what you say: "At NO POINT has I embraced the "dualistic" guess about reality. I keep as distant from that as I do from the "non-dualistic" approach."

Is false.

And not only false because of the above but simply because you have often said that it is your guess that a physical world exists. Re: in discussions with ican and all those speculation threads.

Well, perhaps there is a problem with semantics here.

I certainly can make guesses -- but I do not think that making guesses truly embraces the postion guessed about in the way you are suggesting here.

In any case, I will gladly (and have already done so) concede that for the purposes of living my life -- I am guessing that the physical world exists.

If you want to make anything of that more than it is -- feel free to do so.

There is an amusing aspect to all this that comes from something you know nothing about.

At one point in my life, I participated in a consciousness expansion colloqy -- a thing similar to Werner Ehrhardts's EST. For the duration of the colloqy -- and for a very long time thereafter, I -- and my collegues -- often talked about "the illusion."

I felt very comfortable with the belief system that included considerations of the world as an illusion. But it was a belief -- a hidden guess -- and nothing more.

And that goes back to the 197o's!

Quote:

And the above quote is a recent development of your position.
Which is quite a lovely position Frank, (if it is fully balanced, if that is possible) as you have nothing to defend, beyond the basic, "I do not know"Quite lovely indeed.

Not sure of what you are saying here -- but if you expand on it, I will certainly reply.

0 Replies

For the hell of it, Twyvel...

...a question:

Does the material world exist?

I am not asking for your guess on this -- I am asking for a YES or NO if you KNOW one of those to be correct -- or an I DO NOT KNOW if you are not certain.

0 Replies

Frank,

Without putting words in twyvels mouth I point out that your usage of "existence" presupposes "a testable reality". My usage is that "existence" is "that which affects interaction" whether "belief" or "fact". Twyvel I believe takes an ultimate position that all interaction is "illusiory" because "actors (=testers)" and "the world" are an inseparable unity.

So your question cannot be answered by twyvel within your terms of reference because "materiality" presupposes dualism.

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know