Is free-will an illusion?

Yes in both cases "it rains" addresses a timeless constant, thus the superior category of knowledge it imply s by not referring to the circumstantial or the mundane...and although of course raining is very common the object referenced in "it rains" is not the fact that it is raining but rather that raining is possible and exists...it is the existence of rain as a phenomena which makes "it rains" profoundly distinguishable from a simple its raining...

Yea Fil, interesting sorts of detail but seems like a grammatical issue so how does it bear at all on free will

I don't know but actually felt very much compelled to right it down after reading previous posts...

well it sounds bit ridiculous as being free and then be determined by the situation and the very thinking of being free to think free. Free-will as its said is controlled by God and now when we talk of sin we still think of free-will of human nature than thinking of God as the one giving permission to sin as we know he is the controller of all good and evil. How do we relate free-will to the Ego of God as he is the only one who can do anything to make us good and world be a better place for us. Sometimes i do think that free-will is an illusion as every action is conditioned to the situation and the agents of the situation. Determinism does not find place here as we too are not bound by our free-will.

Yes Kesh it does to me too. However that's what the determinist would maintain and so far we don't have an effective argument to the contrary

Sounds contradictory

Clearly good and evil are relative to the observer while She is not as concerned with the difference as we are

The porker would consider us manifestly evil while the pious Christian ties him up by the hind feet and slits his throat so he bleeds to death

Nonsense. She doesn't "control" anything; She just "lets Herself happen". She does what's possible; what's impossible She can't do and that's why we have volcanoes, earthquakes, disease, crime etc etc

Ego is a humanoid trait

Of course, precisely the position of the determinist. However it's pretty obvious to any reasonably intelligent observer that most everything is determined while the actual exercise of free will must be rare indeed

I'm not sure that makes sense Kesh so you might elaborate a bit

Perfectly okay

...the biggest act in favour of a solid form of atheism does not need to exclude God from the formula but only God's will...a true Determinist does not concern himself with whether the idea of God is or is not feasible or even probable but rather on clarifying how powerless such creature would be if existing at all...all in all, considering God as a very abstract entity its explaining can perhaps be best summarized as a symbol of unity of reality for what it is as a whole...

1. To understand what something is we must be able to make representations of it.
a.) For instance, I must experience pain to know what the feeling of pain is.
b.) Or, I must perceive the relations between the force applied to the petals of a bike and the motion of the gear and the chain to know why a bike moves.

2. We can represent the process of determinism. But we cannot represent any other means of choosing.
a.) For instance, let f be a function of x. Where the outcomes of f(x) are determined by the values of x through a relationship such as: If x>0, f(x) =2x. If x<0, f(x) =x-1.
b.) Representations for another means of choosing do not exist. If such a representation existed it could be analyzed and understood.

3. Because we have no representation for how choices are formed beside the deterministic process, all other claims for how choices can be formed are unfounded. In other words, we do not understand these other claims for how choices are formed and so we should not assume their existence.
a.) If I believe freewill exists, then my will makes the choice. But in this case, the representation of “my will” as the generator of choice does not exist and is therefore not understood.
b.) One can have the experience of freewill without knowing how that experience is produced. The experience is understood, not the means of that experience.

any is absolutely even subjectively or particularly since there where u r alone truth is being more clearly or u r being true more

the choice is perceived in truth recognition, then u see ur choice possible, do i confirm the truth i know and see or do i choose to deny it since noone else is seein it, this is the first choice everyone makes

u know that as soon as u deny the truth u become someone else upon havin to invent facts of what it looks bein

when u choose lies u r meanin own truth as alone inventin urself being true so u could b for u really else so objectively someone fact

but choice truth exist truly and not through lies choice

accordin to my experience choice truth is through being free, being free is through plus realisaitons, plus realisations is through objective superiority, objective superiority is through objective considerations and objective considerations is through being true so havin a stand back that dont mean particularly anything else

I would argue against that, except I am not sure I know what you are saying. Are you even sure?

of course hundredpercent sure, in principle i never reach to write smthg unless i know much more n in facts i said it clearly that i realized it fully through my constant being so it is not from what i know but from what i found out

what i know is from being superior so i m principally above all what exist, which again i repeat is a normal fact when truth is superiority then any free individual awareness is in constant terminology always superior to all what might occur in its mind about else existence facts

while what i just said made it more surely clear to u so to any liar will

bc any conscious or free awareness is always superior to whatever it is conscious or aware about, that free will or realisation cant b but through objective superiority positive end realized absolutely

so by the plus realisation one conscious in principle is connected to freedom truth principally and freedom possible rights facts

but by keepin meanin the will to become superior and not free, so by actin as if u r free and not that u r truly superior for freedom right, as ur relative true character in relation to absolute truth
that is why the end is always meanin else superiority which is not even what u point in mind as bein ur will to exist like, bc superiority is truth u cant point any superiority u want

Awesome!?

In my opinion, based on my own readings, yes, free-will is basically an illusion. In that free-will, as commonly thought of, refers to a free-will of the conscious mind, and our conscious mind is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, of our entire mind, conscious and unconscious. And, our unconscious mind (aka, preferences, fears, etc.) is pretty well established before we get to the first grade, or at least before we move past elementary school. We really are the people our early childhood made us, and our unconscious mind is really in the driver's seat for the rest of our lives.

Foo you put it well indeed. So far the determinists have the upper hand

Yes you are succinctly perfectly correct !
Though the common usage of the expression refers to not be restrained in fulfilling my unchosen needs by third party's...every time I see an aggressive defence of free will inevitably with a smile it reminds me of a drunkard openly and loudly trying to convince is family and mates that drinking is a free choice he is doing and that people should respect it...

Alright we have finally won!!! Now everyone can know true reality: To trudge around as weird machines taking in inputs from the dead mindless universe to produce our determined pointless responses. At least now no one can be held accountable for their actions.

That changes nothing as order requires everything is put in place accountable or not...Thieves and such like disruptive examples would still needed restraint although finally the kilty part and the drama can be left out...

I feel the same way. A determined machine can be programmed to want order just as a determined machine can be programmed to kill (or terminate another machine). An because everything was determined the cause of both positions can be tracked to an external source. So no particular machine is at fault.

But I really do side with the need for order. Without that we could have no advances in our understanding of the external environment or ourselves, and so if there is any purpose to all this we can only find that purpose by advancing our understanding of things. And disorder expressly retards the advancement of knowledge .

everythin is in its place say who??? a piece of paper in dirtiest garbage pin

yea follow her order concept it surely applies on her mind as knowin deservin worse place

how anything could b said being right when everything is meant right from killin right in most monstruous way and satanic strength of living will

what order is that??? since when dirty absolute powers upon rights follow an order schedule and logics justifications to b active

since she decided that she wants that hierarchy of **** force since it is the easiest thing to do shittin on someone else weaker position or even stronger if the will to **** is ready on whoever else what would stop it ?

so since she decided that shittin force should aim on order to **** upon so it would b the only hierarchy reference to follow by being constant through

when ones are such clearly being seen in their heads n hands it proves how truth is opposed to one
individual is never true bc truth is constant superiority out of superior constancy, so never any that decide to stay one same

so that is why individuals are relatively true of what they are absolutely real even if reality is zero or dead end
but also a lot of other individuals are absolute dirt