Free will .......

I think perception is a mix of all. Sensoral input it just wavelengths and particles. A certain range of waves manifest to us as sound, another as sight.

So we have these concepts to categorize our sensoral input in such a way that it creates a coherent picture of our surroundings. This is an unconscious process, needless to say.

Our survival as biological creatures depends on an ability to distinguish food from other matter, danger from safety. An extension of this process of categorizing that begun long before self-awareness is our dualistic understanding of just about everything we encounter. We need to break it down to familiarize ourselves with it.

Thus we are captured by our illusions.
But we can break free by conducting these abstractions. What is picked apart should be assembled again.

Individually, each instrment of a symphony make little sense. But to learn the symphony we need to pick it apart. But for it to make sense to us we need to put it back together. Nothing's changed except our insight into the symphony.

I guess that what I am saying is that dualism and non-dualism function side by side in our experience. Awareness of this may help us understand experience better, and to eventually experience ultimate reality.

0 Replies

It is interesting that you put forward this:

Quote:

Individually, each instrment of a symphony make little sense. But to learn the symphony we need to pick it apart. But for it to make sense to us we need to put it back together. Nothing's changed except our insight into the symphony.

and this:

Quote:

I guess that what I am saying is that dualism and non-dualism function side by side

Yet denounce this as dualism:

Quote:

Is it dualistic to distinguish one perception from another, yet seeing them as complimentary "parts" of a singular holistic network?

If you take the whole apart, does the thing you wish to understand still exist? I think not.

0 Replies

There is an old zen saying, about studying to become enlightened. But I think it holds for the study of all things...

Before you study zen, rivers are rivers, and mountains are mountains.
While you study zen rivers are no longer rivers, and mountains no longer mountains.
When you are enlightened, rivers are again rivers, and mountains again mountains.

0 Replies

Isn't that probably a misuse of the saying though? I mean, Zen doesn't support Western ideas of reducto-mechanism does it?

0 Replies

Reducto-mechanism?
Did you make that up?

In any case, can you explain what you mean by it?

0 Replies

It's a convenient term to represent the conflation of reductionism and mechanism. Both have been prevalent in Western thinking since the ancient Greeks. Eastern philosophies tend to be quite different. Wikipedia has a good account of both.

0 Replies

pswfps wrote:

In your example the relationship exists between the two perceptions. However I am talking about the entirety of all perception as a singular whole. Since there is nothing meanigful outside the scope of perception, perception is everything and absolute. Surely?

Perception isn't absolute.

0 Replies

Sure, one perception has meaning relative to others but what can the entirety of all perception be relative to? Basically, the sum total of perception and all the intricate relationships between them is you. There is nothing else as far as I can see.

0 Replies

the u that speaks or the u that listens?
the u that guards or the u that attacks?
how many us make up a soul?

0 Replies

Herman Hesse says it well in his book "Steppenwolf".

"In body a human being is always one. In mind, never."

Incidentally, this book is also where the band got its name.. :wink:

0 Replies

pswfps wrote:

Sure, one perception has meaning relative to others but what can the entirety of all perception be relative to? Basically, the sum total of perception and all the intricate relationships between them is you. There is nothing else as far as I can see.

The entirety of all perception can be relative to the mechanisms used to perceived it; in other words the brain. You can't judge what is absolute solely by yourself, even objective reality. Nevertheless, the fact that you don't walk off cliffs thinking you're going to the toilet is a testament to the reliability (for most) of the brain.

0 Replies

Reliability... Sure. But reliable to do what? To serve up the picture that is needed in order to survive in a physical world. That isn't to say that this picture is true.

Say there was a power blackout at 12.04. Then there was a solar eclipse at 12.08. Which of the two happened first?

According to our senses, the blackout. But we know that light from the sun needs eight minutes to reach earth, so in reality the eclipse happened four minutes before the blackout...

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Reliability... Sure. But reliable to do what? To serve up the picture that is needed in order to survive in a physical world. That isn't to say that this picture is true.

Say there was a power blackout at 12.04. Then there was a solar eclipse at 12.08. Which of the two happened first?

According to our senses, the blackout. But we know that light from the sun needs eight minutes to reach earth, so in reality the eclipse happened four minutes before the blackout...

Could you link all this to free will please?

0 Replies

Maybe Cyracuz is using relativity to cast doubt on causality, which of course, underpins our ideas of determinsm and free-will?

0 Replies

123rock,

Quote:

The entirety of all perception can be relative to the mechanisms used to perceived it; in other words the brain.

The existence of a "brain" and notions of "mechanisms" are in themselves perceptions, aren't they?

Quote:

You can't judge what is absolute solely by yourself, even objective reality.

Everything changes, that is, the sets of perceptions which make up a "you" at any point in time are transient. That said, the set of perceptions that is "you" at any point in time, is everything there is. In that sense, it cannot be related to anything - even a memory is a perception and subject to change.

You are approaching this from the point of view that there is an external reality? Well then I must ask you to prove it.

0 Replies

What my original question was trying to evoke, without leading the reader, if free will is a grant .... is the grant bestowed by an entity external to I, self, ego, me, the watcher, the guardian etc. etc.

Who/what doles out free will?
How is it exercised?
A mind convinced against it's will is of the same opinion still.

The only thing forfeit would be your life, then what.

Is free will an oxymoron?

0 Replies

Free will is not an oxymoron. You cannot claim you don't have free will simply because you are ignorant. You are free to choose to do anything- if you don't know an option exists, then it is your own fault, not the fault of whatever preordains us with free will.

Just because you don't know all of the options available doesn't mean that you aren't the one choosing. You are only limited by your ignorance, which is a part of you. Hence, you have free will as far as you will allow yourself.

0 Replies

Can a person 'choose' not to accept free will or to give up free will?

0 Replies

Presently, free-will seems oxymoronic.

Free-will involves the notion of choosing. Choosing to take some course of action on the basis of some perceived future benefit arising from such action. In other words, the being exercising choice must be able to some extent predict the future based on current circumstances and thus chooses based on this knowledge. Seems to me that one can only engage in predicting the future if we perceive some sort of mechanical determinsm in the flow of existence. Therefore the notion of free-will is dependent upon determinsm and our ability to perceive and act upon it.

Our actions would in turn be determined by our perception of a determinstic environment. As fresco mentioned earlier, the fallacy is in trying to extract free-will from determinism.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti

I was just responding to the previous post. Not directly linked to free will. Sorry.

But what if free will is merely a conception? Since we cannot make more than one choice at a time, and since we cannot revisit a situation and make a different choice to see what happens, how can we tell if choice is a real factor?

0 Replies

Free will .......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know