Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Yes, that was my point its not as random as A or B not that there is libertarian free will.
so? what are you trying to say? lost in translation.... I am not following you anymore...
why bring up $ example? how does this help you support your own argument and disprove mine?
You were arguing that choice is like a random number generator and using an example of A and B. I'm saying that in reality choices have values in them so they aren't random. Its not about free will or not its about random vs conditioned.
Nagarjuna’s Seventy Verses on Emptiness explain his teaching that phenomena are empty of inherent existence. Nagarjuna says that phenomena are not inherently existent, because they are dependent-arising. Dependent-arising refers to the fact that phenomena arise dependently in relation to their causes and conditions of existence.
The arising of phenomena dependently in relation to their causes and conditions of existence means that phenomena are in cause-and-effect relationships. Phenomena are not inherently the cause of their own existence. The continuation or cessation of phenomena is also dependent upon causes and conditions of existence, and is not inherently existent.
The unity or plurality of phenomena is not inherently existent, but is dependent on causes and conditions of existence (verse 7). Moreover, phenomena are not inherently permanent or temporary (verse 9).
To say that phenomena are not inherently existent is not to say that phenomena are non-existent. The statement that phenomena are not inherently existent means that phenomena depend upon causes and conditions of existence. If phenomena did not depend on causality, they would not exist. Therefore, to say that phenomena exist inherently is actually to say that they do not exist (verse 16)
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@zen_world regarding the double slit. The overall pattern of individual events is the same because it is a probability pattern. The pattern isn't an individual large event.
Lets say there is a %20 chance each photon will land in one of 5 spots.
I I I I I
Each individual event is random but over a large sample a pattern emerges because of the probability of each one landing in any spot.
To restate this slightly. The pattern in the double slit experiment is a probabilistic not deterministic.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Jason Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Is the meaning that volition kind of attaches (maybe not the best word) to a mental arising and gives it more energy than the other available options?
An aside: My teacher says the skandas are but an imperfect labeling of what is actually there in front of us. I think it may be like a point in space (x,y) We can represent it as a dot like we represent as skandas. But a mathematical point actually has no thickness and thus is not a dot.
@Jason Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Is the meaning that volition kind of attaches (maybe not the best word) to a mental arising and gives it more energy than the other available options?
No, that's not what I'm say, but that's definitely an interesting thought/way of looking at it.
Is mindfulness just another illusion to make us think we can make decisions free from pre-determined influences or does it grant us freedom from these chains of determinism.
it absoulately is another illusion...you have no choice whatsoever...zero...
Hey, zen_world! Good to see you're still with us.
I'm pretty sure the Buddha was against determinism. You know the Buddha--always finding a Middle Path between extremes. I think a major foundation of the Dharma is that we have choices. The purpose of studying the Buddha's method is to free ourselves of psychological programming (the "nurture" part of the nature-vs.-nurture equation) so that we can make wise choices and generate "good" karma. To some extent, we may even be able to overcome "nature", as well. Otherwise, what would be the point of Buddhist practice? Mindfulness is a powerful tool. The whole package is a powerful method.
I don't think you can extrapolate a pattern phenomena in QM to a person making a choice. And a separate argument is that each electron is individual and has a random probability. Einstein was not satisfied with QM because it couldn't be reconciled with relativistic theory. But relativistic AND quantum mechanics both point to a non-Newtonian and non-clockwork world. The modern physics does not support a clockwork world. 'God' plays dice.
I didn't bring up the quantum mechanics, person did....But I am glad he did. Actually it is quite relevant to free will. Based on classical mechanics there is nothing non-predictable. The only evidence of free will in scientific terms come from quantum mechanics and particularly the application of QM in quantum brain and consciousness studies. If brain really uses quantum information to make its decisions, then the discussion of QM is very very relevant to free will.
That makes sense to me zen_world. It's that brain/experience interface. Some think the mental experience is an epiphenomenon of quantum bits shifting and some people think the quantum bits are merely coincident. Coincident meaning the form skanda is manifesting at the same time as the feeling, perception, formation of consiousness, and consciousness.
I'm pretty sure the Buddha was against determinism. You know the Buddha--always finding a Middle Path between extremes. I think a major foundation of the Dharma is that we have choices. The purpose of studying the Buddha's method is to free ourselves of psychological programming (the "nurture" part of the nature-vs.-nurture equation) so that we can make wise choices and generate "good" karma. To some extent, we may even be able to overcome "nature", as well. Otherwise, what would be the point of Buddhist practice? Mindfulness is a powerful tool. The whole package is a powerful method.
Thanks Dakini...this site is addictive:)
I totaly understand what you are saying. True, if we didnt have free will then Buddha wouldn't teach dharma. But to me free will resembles the 'self' phenomena. When you look for self, you cannot find it. But Buddha still gave the teachings, he didn't say there is no observer so why bother. Similiarly, if you look for freewill you cannot find it. But the illusion of it is there...
Tell me about it! How many times have I told myself I need to be more mindful of how I spend my time, I need to wean myself away from the forum? Still here.
Similiarly, if you look for freewill you cannot find it. But the illusion of it is there...
I always get lost in the emptiness stuff. With all due respect, I think you're being ridiculous. (You too, Jeffrey.) The Buddha taught right view, right speech, right choices. All of that is about exercising free will to do right instead of wrong. He wouldn't have devoted his life to teaching that if there were no such thing as free will, or if on an absolute level free will didn't exist (WHO CARES if it's an illusion on an absolute level?! :rant: We're practicing the 8-fold path in the here-and-now, in order to better ourselves and to end suffering for sentient beings). Confession: all this relativism and emptiness stuff irritates me, but that's my problem, I guess. : s
If it's all an illusion, why practice? This makes no sense. Let's not get carried away with sophisticated theory. For one thing, this is in "Buddhism for Beginners". For another thing, it won't answer the OP's question, really, to say: well, everything including free will, DNA, ourselves and the Buddha's life's work is all an illusion. :rant:
Nothing personal, you understand. Just a heated debate among friends.
I don't think you can extrapolate a pattern phenomena in QM to a person making a choice. And a separate argument is that each electron is individual and has a random probability. Einstein was not satisfied with QM because it couldn't be reconciled with relativistic theory. But relativistic AND quantum mechanics both point to a non-Newtonian and non-clockwork world. The modern physics does not support a clockwork world. 'God' plays dice.
I didn't bring up the quantum mechanics, person did....But I am glad he did. Actually it is quite relevant to free will. Based on classical mechanics there is nothing non-predictable. The only evidence of free will in scientific terms come from quantum mechanics and particularly the application of QM in quantum brain and consciousness studies. If brain really uses quantum information to make its decisions, then the discussion of QM is very very relevant to free will.
I find it interesting, especially in relation to kamma. During the Buddha's time, there were many different theories of kamma floating around, and the Buddha tackles quite a few of them throughout the suttas (e.g., AN 3.61, DN 2, etc.). The Jain theory of kamma that's portrayed in the Pali Canon, for example, is that everything we do or experience in the present is solely conditioned by past actions, which I like to term the straight line theory of causality (see MN 101).
The Buddha, on the other hand, took the position that our experience of the present is conditioned by both past and present actions, which I like to call the non-linear theory of causality. And it's always struck me that the difference between Nigantha Nataputta's doctrine of kamma and the Buddha's doctrine of kamma is not unlike the difference between Democritus' atomism and Epicurus' atomism, with the addition of the random 'swerve' in the latter's view to account for some semblance of free will and choice. Perhaps quantum unpredictability is the modern-day equivalent to the Epicurean swerve.
Yes Dakini that's correct what you said. Scroll up. I already linked a sutra that says that these questions are unfit for attention.
Jeffrey said:
past and future are thoughts... look to the here and now
I think that determinism and free will are stories. Buddha said that the thoughts: Was I? Was I not? What was I? How was I? Will I be? Will I not be? What will I be? How will I be? Having been something in the past what will I be?
All of those thoughts are not ideas fit for attention.
I always get lost in the emptiness stuff. With all due respect, I think you're being ridiculous. (You too, Jeffrey.) The Buddha taught right view, right speech, right choices. All of that is about exercising free will to do right instead of wrong. He wouldn't have devoted his life to teaching that if there were no such thing as free will, or if on an absolute level free will didn't exist (WHO CARES if it's an illusion on an absolute level?! :rant: We're practicing the 8-fold path in the here-and-now, in order to better ourselves and to end suffering for sentient beings). Confession: all this relativism and emptiness stuff irritates me, but that's my problem, I guess. : s
If it's all an illusion, why practice? This makes no sense. Let's not get carried away with sophisticated theory. For one thing, this is in "Buddhism for Beginners". For another thing, it won't answer the OP's question, really, to say: well, everything including free will, DNA, ourselves and the Buddha's life's work is all an illusion. :rant:
Nothing personal, you understand. Just a heated debate among friends.
Hahaha....Dakini you made me laugh:) there is no free will. If there is show me where is it? In what text Buddha talk about free will? He talks about cause and effect - not free will... However, your mistake is you are inferring that because Buddha gave all these teachings 'there must be free will'. That is your conclusion, it is not a fact And I don't agree...It doesn't have to be... And thats why I gave 'the self' example...
Buddhism teaches 'no self' - the basis of our teachings...is it sophisticated? And I say no free will....why do you blame me by being too sophisticated when I say there is no free will but you are okay with 'no self' teachings ...if you can handle no self, you can handle no free will:)
The Buddha did not teach "no self". He taught a Middle Way between a permanent self and no-self. He taught an ever-changing self. I'm not ok with no-self teachings, where did I give the impression I was ok with that?
The Buddha didn't use the words "free will", you're right. He implied there was such a thing by teaching how to make skillful choices. Didn't he?
The Buddha did not teach "no self". He taught a Middle Way between a permanent self and no-self. He taught an ever-changing self. I'm not ok with no-self teachings, where did I give the impression I was ok with that?
The Buddha didn't use the words "free will". He implied there was such a thing by teaching how to make skillful choices. Didn't he?
\
Buddha searched for the self and he said he couldn't find it... I searched for free will and I couldn't find it... Did you?
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
This is where the misunderstanding comes from, that the Buddha taught no-self. Just because he couldn't identify a fixed, permanent self doesn't mean he taught no-self. But I guess it depends on which teacher you listen to ...
People commonly take the teachings about deconstructing the self, "where is the self? Is it in a name? Is it in the personality? Is it this or that? No" as a teaching about no-self. That is a teaching about the impermanence of self. There is a self, but it's "subject to change", to use a phrase from Jeffrey's post.
Anyway, I see Jeffrey's just posted clarification of this point, thanks, Jeffrey.
That is true.... There is no solid fixed self that you can sau 'hey I find it'....no matter where you look it is not there... and also you are right, we may not find it but we still here aren't we? so something is here...a self that is illusion-like same applies for free will...you search it, and you cannot find it...but it is here....free will is illusion-like... thats what I said earlier...hope it is clear now...
OK, your position is more clear now, zen_world. You're saying, "yes, and no" to the "is there free will?" question. I guess that's as close as we'll get to agreeing. I think on a beginner's level, the answer is yes, for all practical purposes. Can we agree on that? (Extends olive branch...)
'If this is, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises; if this is not, that does not come to be; from the stopping of this, that is stopped'.
What the Buddha saw, when he gained Enlightenment, was that all the phenomena of the world, without exception, arise in dependence upon conditions and with the cessation of those conditions the phenomena which depend upon them also cease. Behind, above, beyond this vast network of conditions there exists nothing at all. The entire vast unfathomable cosmos is nothing but an ever changing network of related conditions, and wherever we look into it, if we look with a calm, concentrated and fearless gaze, we see infinite depths of inter-connectedness. Seeing in this way, with the unclouded eye of spiritual insight, is
'To see a World in a grain of sand And a Heaven in a wild-flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And eternity in an hour'. 6
If there is absolute freedom there would be no need for Buddhism. It is because we are all trapped in the web of conditions that we need to use conditions to free ourselves. Whatever the choices that we make are "determined" ie. skillful or unskillful.
The N8FP is just another set of conditions to create conditions favorable to gain that freedom.
Quoting Ajahn Chah:
Asankhata dhamma, the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen the Dhamma, the truth, of the five khandhas as they are - as transient, imperfect and ownerless. All ideas of ''me'' and ''them,'' ''mine'' and ''theirs,'' belong to the determined reality. Really they are all conditions. When we know the truth of conditions, as neither ourselves nor belonging to us, we let go of conditions and the determined. When we let go of conditions we attain the Dhamma, we enter into and realize the Dhamma. When we attain the Dhamma we know clearly. What do we know? We know that there are only conditions and determinations, no being, no self, no ''us'' nor ''them.'' This is knowledge of the way things are.
Seeing in this way the mind transcends things. The body may grow old, get sick and die, but the mind transcends this state. When the mind transcends conditions, it knows the unconditioned. The mind becomes the unconditioned, the state which no longer contains conditioning factors. The mind is no longer conditioned by the concerns of the world, conditions no longer contaminate the mind. Pleasure and pain no longer affect it. Nothing can affect the mind or change it, the mind is assured, it has escaped all constructions. Seeing the true nature of conditions and the determined, the mind becomes free.
Asankhata dhamma, the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen the Dhamma, the truth, of the five khandhas as they are - as transient, imperfect and ownerless. All ideas of ''me'' and ''them,'' ''mine'' and ''theirs,'' belong to the determined reality. Really they are all conditions. When we know the truth of conditions, as neither ourselves nor belonging to us, we let go of conditions and the determined. When we let go of conditions we attain the Dhamma, we enter into and realize the Dhamma. When we attain the Dhamma we know clearly. What do we know? We know that there are only conditions and determinations, no being, no self, no ''us'' nor ''them.'' This is knowledge of the way things are.
Seeing in this way the mind transcends things. The body may grow old, get sick and die, but the mind transcends this state. When the mind transcends conditions, it knows the unconditioned. The mind becomes the unconditioned, the state which no longer contains conditioning factors. The mind is no longer conditioned by the concerns of the world, conditions no longer contaminate the mind. Pleasure and pain no longer affect it. Nothing can affect the mind or change it, the mind is assured, it has escaped all constructions. Seeing the true nature of conditions and the determined, the mind becomes free.
Very interesting read. It would be amazing to reach this state. I would love to get there.
For this to work, I would expect that the enlightenment would need to be so grand that it would transcend one's biological state. It would need to overrule one's mental and emotional intelligence level that is capped by our biological frame. If it didn't, then I would expect that your freewill would still be an illusion as your choices would be influenced by your biological process, hence causing causality.
Some how this reminds me of the move The Matrix. Neo realizing that the world didn't make sense and transcending beyond it's parameters; henceforth, gaining freewill and seeing what it really was.
Comments
Nagarjuna is only accepted by mahayana school.
I'm pretty sure the Buddha was against determinism. You know the Buddha--always finding a Middle Path between extremes.
If brain really uses quantum information to make its decisions, then the discussion of QM is very very relevant to free will.
I totaly understand what you are saying. True, if we didnt have free will then Buddha wouldn't teach dharma.
But to me free will resembles the 'self' phenomena. When you look for self, you cannot find it. But Buddha still gave the teachings, he didn't say there is no observer so why bother.
Similiarly, if you look for freewill you cannot find it. But the illusion of it is there...
If it's all an illusion, why practice? This makes no sense. Let's not get carried away with sophisticated theory. For one thing, this is in "Buddhism for Beginners". For another thing, it won't answer the OP's question, really, to say: well, everything including free will, DNA, ourselves and the Buddha's life's work is all an illusion. :rant:
Nothing personal, you understand. Just a heated debate among friends.
The Buddha, on the other hand, took the position that our experience of the present is conditioned by both past and present actions, which I like to call the non-linear theory of causality. And it's always struck me that the difference between Nigantha Nataputta's doctrine of kamma and the Buddha's doctrine of kamma is not unlike the difference between Democritus' atomism and Epicurus' atomism, with the addition of the random 'swerve' in the latter's view to account for some semblance of free will and choice. Perhaps quantum unpredictability is the modern-day equivalent to the Epicurean swerve.
Jeffrey said:
Like I said before, I think the Buddha taught a Middle Way between determinism and ... whatever the opposite of that is.
there is no free will. If there is show me where is it? In what text Buddha talk about free will? He talks about cause and effect - not free will...
However, your mistake is you are inferring that because Buddha gave all these teachings 'there must be free will'. That is your conclusion, it is not a fact And I don't agree...It doesn't have to be...
And thats why I gave 'the self' example...
Buddhism teaches 'no self' - the basis of our teachings...is it sophisticated?
And I say no free will....why do you blame me by being too sophisticated when I say there is no free will but you are okay with 'no self' teachings ...if you can handle no self, you can handle no free will:)
The Buddha didn't use the words "free will", you're right. He implied there was such a thing by teaching how to make skillful choices. Didn't he?
Buddha searched for the self and he said he couldn't find it...
I searched for free will and I couldn't find it...
Did you?
People commonly take the teachings about deconstructing the self, "where is the self? Is it in a name? Is it in the personality? Is it this or that? No" as a teaching about no-self. That is a teaching about the impermanence of self. There is a self, but it's "subject to change", to use a phrase from Jeffrey's post.
Anyway, I see Jeffrey's just posted clarification of this point, thanks, Jeffrey.
There is no solid fixed self that you can sau 'hey I find it'....no matter where you look it is not there...
and also you are right, we may not find it but we still here aren't we? so something is here...a self that is illusion-like
same applies for free will...you search it, and you cannot find it...but it is here....free will is illusion-like...
thats what I said earlier...hope it is clear now...
OK, your position is more clear now, zen_world. You're saying, "yes, and no" to the "is there free will?" question. I guess that's as close as we'll get to agreeing. I think on a beginner's level, the answer is yes, for all practical purposes. Can we agree on that? (Extends olive branch...)
What the Buddha saw, when he gained Enlightenment, was that all the phenomena of the world, without exception, arise in dependence upon conditions and with the cessation of those conditions the phenomena which depend upon them also cease. Behind, above, beyond this vast network of conditions there exists nothing at all. The entire vast unfathomable cosmos is nothing but an ever changing network of related conditions, and wherever we look into it, if we look with a calm, concentrated and fearless gaze, we see infinite depths of inter-connectedness. Seeing in this way, with the unclouded eye of spiritual insight, is
'To see a World in a grain of sand And a Heaven in a wild-flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And eternity in an hour'. 6
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol1/conditionality.html
The N8FP is just another set of conditions to create conditions favorable to gain that freedom.
Quoting Ajahn Chah:
Asankhata dhamma, the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen the Dhamma, the truth, of the five khandhas as they are - as transient, imperfect and ownerless. All ideas of ''me'' and ''them,'' ''mine'' and ''theirs,'' belong to the determined reality. Really they are all conditions. When we know the truth of conditions, as neither ourselves nor belonging to us, we let go of conditions and the determined. When we let go of conditions we attain the Dhamma, we enter into and realize the Dhamma. When we attain the Dhamma we know clearly. What do we know? We know that there are only conditions and determinations, no being, no self, no ''us'' nor ''them.'' This is knowledge of the way things are.
Seeing in this way the mind transcends things. The body may grow old, get sick and die, but the mind transcends this state. When the mind transcends conditions, it knows the unconditioned. The mind becomes the unconditioned, the state which no longer contains conditioning factors. The mind is no longer conditioned by the concerns of the world, conditions no longer contaminate the mind. Pleasure and pain no longer affect it. Nothing can affect the mind or change it, the mind is assured, it has escaped all constructions. Seeing the true nature of conditions and the determined, the mind becomes free.
For this to work, I would expect that the enlightenment would need to be so grand that it would transcend one's biological state. It would need to overrule one's mental and emotional intelligence level that is capped by our biological frame. If it didn't, then I would expect that your freewill would still be an illusion as your choices would be influenced by your biological process, hence causing causality.