The ability to do otherwise is not precluded by the ability to do, to the passive observer.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is your stance on free will?
- Thread starter ZenMonkey
- Start date
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
By that logic it's perfectly fine to say a magician is practicing necromancy by sawing a woman in half and putting her back together and that TV wrestling isn't scripted.
Perhaps free will is simply kayfabe?
I'm still not following.
Why does it have to be kayfabe? Why can't it just be ordinary reification?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Because it's not useful, as we have been over. In regards to present society, we no longer have need of that hypothesis.
What is the hypothesis? I'm still not following. What does the magician example have to do with an ability to do or an ability to do otherwise?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
The magician example deals with what is apparent to the "passive observer" and what is actually occurring. The hypothesis is that humans must be considered to be free of past influence or otherwise free to decide critically between two or more likely paths, because otherwise something bad would happen to society, as you stated.
You can play the fool all you want. Compatibilism is a deception for what people believe is the greater good, but it is still deception.
The past has happened, and no amount of speculation about a free will is going to change what happened or what influenced things to happen as they did. Free will arguments should not be about influences, in my opinion. That pales in comparison to what's going down now, in this moment.
The passive observer I'm talking about is you (each of us), the observer of the world as it has actually unfolded. If a magician on a stage in the world is defeating our sensibilities, deceiving us, then that's not a deceit that represents "free will." Free will's "freedom" (our freedom) comes from being lifted to a status above the world by duality (separation)--the world is "other," and that grants a "me."
Passive awareness is the seer of actions having been done, decisions having been made, the self's movement and flow through an actual external world (duality). By whatever means these decisions get made, there's no argument that all are influenced by something, made before awareness, and reducable to other things. We have these abilities to assign, to observe, and to reduce. While I understand people argue these things, to me what's meaningless is denying them.
There's no deceit about a "you" or a "me," these illusions exist and are useful.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Illusion and deception are just two ways of looking at the falsehood I guess.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Back to square one.
What is "false" about it?
Troll, troll, troll your boat...
"something that looks or seems different from what it is : something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real"
Illusion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Please, try a little harder.
Let me try another angle, then. In what way is anything I described different than what it is?
In what way is samsara different than what it is? or a mirage?
Last edited:
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Perception, and given the fact that you have no qualms with upholding the masquerade (believing it to be some sort of opium of the people), that would make you...Mara.
And what lies beyond perception except imagination?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Noting the difference between what is apparent and what has been critically examined, anything but imagination.
How are you making a distinction between perception and critical examination? (Could it be... analysis?)
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Analysis is a step in the chain, yes.
Observation, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, and revision (of necessary).
Adequate determinism has been verified. Dragging around a corpse of a term and making it do tricks to astound the otherwise dangerous masses is just vulgar.
'I' is not a deception. It does exist. Illusory to what extent? We have billions of "I" perceptions in our biology but only the brain is able to reconcile them giving us a focal point. Our cells are choosing but then the brain can accept or override it because some other cells gave more information to alter the choice. The choice is completely biological but there is a fight in there, determinism clearly is not cut and dry in the brain. If anything indirect causes allow for compatibilism, especially when talking of an independent organism. What does the brain depend on to make choices except itself?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
We are not a car and while you don't buy it, its how the brain physically works.
You also use the subconscious to drive you make decisions while driving you don't consciously think about, the subconscious is making the decisions. It saves time and resources from your conscious mind. It would get overwhelmed.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Again its how your brain works and your not getting it or the implications.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
As I have said before, the presence of "I" has no effect on the argument of freedom of will.