A challenge to show me wrong

[blackout]

I will probably want to unpack this line of thought more later,
but I don't want to forget, so...


When I look at mySelf,
I see that I have Set Up
"Self Willed, Self Becoming"
AS my Primary Catalyst.
I look carefully at situations
and I ask mySelf,
is this what some other wants of me?,
or is this thing what I want of/for mySelf.
I sit and ask mySelf,
"What DO I want for mySelf?"
and "Why?",
and what practical, creative, and symbolic steps
can I take to "make that thing so".
(ie, "Reality")

When I decide what it is I Will
(ie, Want to obtain or achieve for mySelf)
I survey my surroundings
and all of my current "givens"
to find ways of "making that so".
It's almost like engineering a new chain of cause.
I meditate on and design a track, logos, Icons,
pull together resources,
put it together rail by rail, line by line,
and sometimes "sell it" to others-
either the idea, or the finished product,
(where necessary)
create/produce/fuel a little momentum here,
a little momentum there....
till my new train of cause'ation
Becomes, as the new streamline train of my creation,
first chugging, then cruising down what has then
Become IT'S OWN TRACK.
The Track of it's Own Momentum.

If I purposefully SET up, and SET in motion
my Own SET of causations
for the sake of my own creations,
does that not make 'Me' "the creator"?
(of that cause'ation, creation line--Set Up by 'Me')

If you purposefully SET up enough of these,
and you ride your Own trains (so to speak)
does that not make you
the cause-- of your own cause?

I do See that we can tip the balance.
ie., begin laying down a new momentum,
which will strengthen to cause'ation
through focus and repetition.

This, I see, is how we "Become" Our Own Godhood.
Remanifestation, the start of a new Self Desired track.
Xeper, the Successful Becoming (ie Creation)
of that New Self Desired track
into Being AS a whole new engine/line of Cause'ation.
Causation>> Creation>> Causation>> Creation on and on


Some people spend their lives riding other people's trains.
Some build their own.

This to me, is the distinction of importance.
I want to design and ride my own trains.
Though sometimes other people design fascinating trains too,
with interesting destinations.
I like day (or night) trips on those.
(Complete with a return ticket)

EDIT: I do not know if this, however,
is the (kind of) "Free Will"
the OP is addressing.

 

[jtartar]

In the last month or so there's been an increased interest in free will.

"Defining Free Will" by Penumbra

"God and his free will" by Skwim

"Do Atheists believe in free-will?" by SPLogan

"Freewill or Fate" by The Sum of Awe

"Free Will? Where?" by ejay286
​

This interest has usually centered around the affirmation of free will and/or a denunciation of it. Some very interesting thoughts on both sides have come out of these discussions, many well thought out and others not so much. Whatever the case, there's been a frequent problem with some of the terms involved, most often those concerning "free will" and "will." People have either failed to let others know what they had in mind when they use them, or have provided definitions that got mired in misunderstandings and confusion. Even when directly asked to define these terms people have skirted the request, and have proceeded to side topics, leaving the issue of free will no more resolved than before. So what's going on here?

As I see it, free will is important to many because without it would mean each of is nothing more than Robbie the Robot, which is anathema to the notion personal freedom. If I have no freedom of choice how can I be blamed for what I do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given.

Any exception to free will is seen as temporary constraint. "I am free to to do this or that unless someone/thing comes and prevents it. Of course this isn't at all what the issue of free will is about. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think a decent working definition of "free will" is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished.

Those who most disagree with this are the hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused then we could not have done differently, therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic level: Are we free to do other than what we chose or not? I say, No you are not. Free will is an illusion. But before going into why, we first need to get rid of the term "choice" because it assumes to be true the condition under consideration, freedom to do what we want. So no use of "choice," "choosing,"chosen," or any other form of the word.

Here's how I see it.
There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused. By "completely randomly" I mean absolutely random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, appears to occur is at the subatomic level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate, completely randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that negate any randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless the causes had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with our decisions. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, the will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .



This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.

Comments?

Skwim,
First, think about this; Epistemological Predicament. This means that a person can only reason from the things that are already in his own mind. Because mankind is so limited in his knowledge and understanding, God, in His wisdom, has had His word written down in an open letter to all mankind. That word is God's Holy Bible. This is the ONLY place where we can get true information that can be relied upon. By taking God's advice we can make the best possible actions. That way we use our Free Will in the best possible way. After all, what good does free will do a person if he does not have all the information he needs to make the best decision??
This is the reason for what God says at Prov 3:5,6, 2:1-11, James 1:5,6.
As to FREE WILL: Free Will is the freedom to take the course of action you want to take. Nothing but your own mind and the desires of the fallen flesh cause you to decide on a course, James 1:13-15, Gen 8:21. Thinking that God is the reason for mankinds problems reminds me of what the Bible says at Prov 19:3.
Mankind has had the unfettered use of free will for over six thousand years, and where has it led him?? Is the world becoming a better place to live each day??
The Bible says that God's word is alive and Powerful, so if men were taking the advice of God, who knows the best, the world would be a better place every day, Heb 4:12,13, Eph 4:22-24, Rom 2:4. God only makes rules because we NEED to know what to do, and most times do not know the best course, Isa 48:17,18, Deut 10:13.
The Bible is clear about why most things happen, Rev 12:9, 1John 5:19, John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11. The Bible tells us that we are to work out our own salvation, Phil 2:12.
God, whose Personal name is Jehovah, is indeed the First Cause, and Jesus is the Second Cause, but God, after Adam and Eve rebelled against Him, has left us on out own. God does not cause any person to do anything today. The only thing that causes a person to act in a particular way is his heart. If a person loves God's word he will try to find out what God wants us to do, Rom 12:2, and then train his conscience to act in a righteous manner, Heb 5:13,15, 13:18.

 

[ellenjanuary]

What does this all mean then? It means that we cannot do any any differently than what we do. Our actions are caused (determined) by previous events and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no will to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, the will does not exist, nor does choice, etc..

Of course this means that blame and praise come out as pretty hollow concepts. If you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so is like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter. Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .



This, then, is my argument---a bit shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.

Comments?

I'm about 99.9% in alignment. The remainder is a matter of faith... not the standard mix. The problem with philosophical causality mingling with the quantum is a matter of discreetness. "Every effect has a cause" assumes a whole number. Therefore if we could contemplate the Planck length to the Planck time, everyone would know ellen "chose" vanilla creme donuts this morning. But ellen always chooses vanilla creme donuts. Every time I speak, I choose English... I'm sure everybody knows about the Gwynnies in the ellen. So, why choose? Why even allow for the illusion of choice? Why not just say, things fall down, and call it gravity rather than anti-creationism?

Because we can. And to do so, well, we need vanilla creme donuts. It is a multiplication of inefficiency in an engine that runs on entropy. Yet to write these words in ten thousand b.c.e., I woulda hadda eat an Apatosaurus; oh, and feed one to the engravers. But did the mind of then ask the same question without all the verbosity? It would seem, for was not a choice, always made?

I think of my will as analogue, my matter digital; every once an eon, my wave passes through the dots, and I think like god.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Skwim,
This is the ONLY place where we can get true information that can be relied upon.

Two problems. A) What is in the Bible that is not in the dictionary? B) What man walks a path completely untrod by another? And who speaks the tongue of Moses, and who translated?

My NIV is a Christian Bible; being Gerim I have exposed myself to the Torah - believe it, the slant to make the old correspond to the new has a visible incline. I got no problem with the Bible; beat people over the head with mine alla time. However, if it is the only source; then it either came from evolution or god is dead. I'm sure there's still Source, if ya know what I mean.

 

[blackout]

I'm about 99.9% in alignment. The remainder is a matter of faith... not the standard mix. The problem with philosophical causality mingling with the quantum is a matter of discreetness. "Every effect has a cause" assumes a whole number. Therefore if we could contemplate the Planck length to the Planck time, everyone would know ellen "chose" vanilla creme donuts this morning. But ellen always chooses vanilla creme donuts. Every time I speak, I choose English... I'm sure everybody knows about the Gwynnies in the ellen. So, why choose? Why even allow for the illusion of choice? Why not just say, things fall down, and call it gravity rather than anti-creationism?

Because we can. And to do so, well, we need vanilla creme donuts. It is a multiplication of inefficiency in an engine that runs on entropy. Yet to write these words in ten thousand b.c.e., I woulda hadda eat an Apatosaurus; oh, and feed one to the engravers. But did the mind of then ask the same question without all the verbosity? It would seem, for was not a choice, always made?

I think of my will as analogue, my matter digital; every once an eon, my wave passes through the dots, and I think like god.

That was awesome. :rainbow1:

(did you mean Apostasaurus?
That's how I read it. )

 

[ellenjanuary]

That was awesome. :rainbow1:

(did you mean Apostasaurus?
That's how I read it. )

Thankee.

I don't know, man... dang evolutionists... I was thinking Brontosaur "evolved" into Apatosaur... if there's further evolution going on with these fossils, I don't know... where's Painted Wolf?

 

[PolyHedral]

This is the ONLY place where we can get true information that can be relied upon.

That is quite clearly silly. The only place where we can reliably get information that matches reality, i.e. is true, is... well, reality itself. All the information in the world is useless if it can't be traced back to reality. The only thing that can be said to be "true" independent of reality is mathematics, and that is and will always remain an abstract idea. (Though a very useful one. )

Bizarrely enough, the Bible can't be matched with reality in some cases. For instance, it's quite easy to show that the Earth is at least 100,000 years old. That is not what the Bible tells us. (You can play all sorts of semantic games and argue that that's what the authors meant, but that is completely irrelevant. It is not what the authors said.)

 

[ellenjanuary]

That is quite clearly silly. The only place where we can reliably get information that matches reality, i.e. is true, is... well, reality itself. All the information in the world is useless if it can't be traced back to reality. The only thing that can be said to be "true" independent of reality is mathematics, and that is and will always remain an abstract idea. (Though a very useful one. )

Bizarrely enough, the Bible can't be matched with reality in some cases. For instance, it's quite easy to show that the Earth is at least 100,000 years old. That is not what the Bible tells us. (You can play all sorts of semantic games and argue that that's what the authors meant, but that is completely irrelevant. It is not what the authors said.)

There you go. That other guy know that, he read Job. Everybody wanna demean the Job, call it a mere morality tale. Yeah, the first book of the coming three thousand years of prophecy is "just..." nothing. It's the compendium. That's how god do it. Lesson from Job: "when in doubt, look towards nature." Modern lesson: nature now big enough "supernatural god," talk of fools.

 

[Koldo]

If he didm he would have willed it --he would have had will before he chose will. What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing wrong. That 'will' is simply not 'free will' (as usually understood). That is all.

 

[Koldo]

Skwim,
First, think about this; Epistemological Predicament. This means that a person can only reason from the things that are already in his own mind. Because mankind is so limited in his knowledge and understanding, God, in His wisdom, has had His word written down in an open letter to all mankind. That word is God's Holy Bible. This is the ONLY place where we can get true information that can be relied upon. By taking God's advice we can make the best possible actions. That way we use our Free Will in the best possible way. After all, what good does free will do a person if he does not have all the information he needs to make the best decision??

An open letter to all mankind?
Let's stop right here for a moment.
I don't remember the scriptures being written in every possible language on Earth from the start. :sarcastic

The only thing that causes a person to act in a particular way is his heart.

And who is it that make a person's heart?

 

[Willamena]

Nothing wrong. That 'will' is simply not 'free will' (as usually understood). That is all.

So he had no choice? That usually means it was done "against his will."

What is 'will' that's not free?

 

[ellenjanuary]

An open letter to all mankind?
Let's stop right here for a moment.
I don't remember the scriptures being written in every possible language on Earth from the start. :sarcastic

No? How about "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth." What's universal and timely in there? The trine: God, heavens, earth. What's modern in there? In the physical universe, the beginning of structure is the trine... ya know, I kinda still don't like the Bible, but that ain't the Bible's fault; that's the fault of people trying to tell me my scripture. I could completely ignore it, but I could completely ignore English; speak in math and art... or I can ignore the wailings of a million despots and the ten thousand names of god they try to shove down each other's throat. Or, as I did; listen for the single, clear tone of love, and learn what most do not. The clearest voice speaks from the Bible with one name: I am.

But like the tao say: it is the emptiness of the bucket that makes it useful, and there are other paths... but to dismiss scripture entirely? That'd be like me, in my bath towel with the sword of allah running down the street yelling, "allah akhbar!" It may be true, but for how long, if all my neighbors are on a Fox News terror alert?

 

[Adramelek]

After thinking about it and discussing these concepts with a good friend of mine, I have come to the following conclusions, which of course can change through further understanding on my part. For instance: was my becoming a disciple of the Left-Hand Path a free will decision or was it something I was compelled to do as a result of my seemingly natural inclination towards this path and a seemingly natural fascination by it by being exposed to it in the free society I live in? What if I was born into and lived in a society like that of the state of Iran? Would I have turned out the same way? Would I have become a Black Magician if I were raised in a fundamentalist Muslim state? I doubt it. I might have been naturally drawn to the beauty of the night and the darkness without ever knowing what it truly meant - I would have become a completely different person, a product of the strict fundamentalist Muslim society I lived in as I would have never been exposed to the sort of things that would have triggered that deeper Truth which lied dormant within my psyche.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[ellenjanuary]

After thinking about it and discussing these concepts with a good friend of mine, I have come to the following conclusions, which of course can change through further understanding on my part. For instance: was my becoming a disciple of the Left-Hand Path a free will decision or was it something I was compelled to do as a result of my seemingly natural inclination towards this path and a seemingly natural fascination by it by being exposed to it in the free society I live in? What if I was born into and lived in a society like that of the state of Iran? Would I have turned out the same way? Would I have become a Black Magician if I were raised in a fundamentalist Muslim state? I doubt it. I might have been naturally drawn to the beauty of the night and the darkness without ever knowing what it truly meant - I would have become a completely different person, a product of the strict fundamentalist Muslim society I lived in as I would have never been exposed to the sort of things that would have triggered that deeper Truth which lied dormant within my psyche.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

I know this fifty-year old girl with the spiritual maturity of my left big toe because her force-fed Christianity denies her inner witchcraft making her more like... witch. Then there's the Haggard Ted whose closeted imp was the flame for the anti- until the gay emerged. You may have been consumed and made bland by the great digestive society... or Set may have assumed the challenge to make the desert bloom.

And I love the math, I have no shame in being Normal to the Mean; but I know that of all I am, the world sees the Gwynnies in between...

 

[doppelganger]

It is obvious that our influence has a huge impact in a cause and effect system. Our influence as it is now would impact the future in a ripple effect that is beyond what we can fathom.

"Our influence"? To what are you referring?

 

[Koldo]

So he had no choice? That usually means it was done "against his will."

His will determined the answer.
He didn't get to choose his own will though.

What is 'will' that's not free?

Simply 'will'.

 

[Koldo]

No? How about "In the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth." What's universal and timely in there? The trine: God, heavens, earth. What's modern in there? In the physical universe, the beginning of structure is the trine... ya know, I kinda still don't like the Bible, but that ain't the Bible's fault; that's the fault of people trying to tell me my scripture. I could completely ignore it, but I could completely ignore English; speak in math and art... or I can ignore the wailings of a million despots and the ten thousand names of god they try to shove down each other's throat. Or, as I did; listen for the single, clear tone of love, and learn what most do not. The clearest voice speaks from the Bible with one name: I am.

But like the tao say: it is the emptiness of the bucket that makes it useful, and there are other paths... but to dismiss scripture entirely? That'd be like me, in my bath towel with the sword of allah running down the street yelling, "allah akhbar!" It may be true, but for how long, if all my neighbors are on a Fox News terror alert?

I fail to understand what all this has to do with my post. :sarcastic

 

[Adramelek]

You may have been consumed and made bland by the great digestive society... or Set may have assumed the challenge to make the desert bloom.

Thanks ellenjanuary,

After contemplating your statement above a paradox occured to me. Concerning your beautifuly crafted words of the last sentence - There is a statement within a Magical text contained within one of the "Jeweled Tablets of Set" authored by the Temple of Set which states: "I (Set) shall roam this world, and shall come to those who seek me." If I were to have been raised in a totalitarian Islamic state and still had been Touched by the hand of That which Is Set, thus, compeling me to seek after more zealously the study, and practice the Black Arts, I would have to hide completely my beliefs or suffer the sentence of death for blasphemy (the inquisition comes to mind). Either that or try to escape to a western country.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Willamena]

His will determined the answer.
He didn't get to choose his own will though.

Do you mean he didn't choose to have will, the same way he didn't choose to have a mind? But he still uses his mind (freely) (willfully).

 

[Koldo]

Do you mean he didn't choose to have will, the same way he didn't choose to have a mind? But he still uses his mind (freely) (willfully).

No, i mean it the same way he didn't chose which mind to have.
Anyway, i wouldn't say an individual uses his mind.
An individual is his mind.