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.
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@SpinyNorman I agree. Gnostic atheists and gnostic theists both escape me. I mean I can understand believing strongly, but that shouldn't be confused for knowledge. That seems to be what many do.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
And hell, we Buddhists can have what are called "mystical experiences"!
I suspect that a lot of confirmation bias goes on. People believe in God and then interpret experiences in a way that confirms their belief.
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited January 2015
@SpinyNorman Yeah well I think that's the only way we can have so many gods that people believe in. Not to mention other things that are scientifically untenable like homeopathy, dousing, or faith healing. The lack of skepticism is the biggest difference that I see between myself and the majority of people. I feel like I'm in a small group, even if I'm part of larger groups too. Anyway I think we're derailing the thread now, LOL.
@Toraldris said:
I just got done listening to the latest episode of The Atheist Experience (900), and a caller brought up free will. I thought that was quite fortuitous timing. Anyway they brought up cases where the connecting tissue in the mid-brain is severed in hospital patients, and they go on to have two separate personalities. In one oft-cited case, one side of the brain was an atheist and the other theist. I'm not sure what point to make with that, but it's interesting to consider.
I listened to a Ted Talk which spoke about this. I think it also gives an insight into the concept of 'self'.
Maybe freewill is a flat-earth question (you know, a question which becomes irrelevant when the facts are known, such as 'why doesn't the sea water just run off the edge of the Earth')?
If there's no inherent self, how can there be a freewill for a self to direct?
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Tosh I'm with you. The more I've been inclined to Buddhist thinking, the less "free will" makes sense. It assumes some independent agent, when that's the last thing Buddhism is teaching. If someone defined free will better, maybe we could answer it more clearly, but I haven't heard anyone trying to define it. They just say "free will" and expect it to be meaningful. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't!
@Toraldris said:
And hell, we Buddhists can have what are called "mystical experiences"!
Buddhism is regarded by some as a form of mysticism.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2015
Strange... In my mind agnostic would be the only honest position. it means we don't know but are open to examining any evidence.
Depending on my mindset on any given day I could argue for theism and non-theism. I don't pretend I actually know but only close myself off to possibilities that don't make sense. I don't fully believe any scenario but I know what makes most sense to me at any given time and am aware that could change.
"While the question of free will does not figure as prominently in Buddhist writings as it does in western theology, philosophy, and psychology, it is a topic that was addressed in the earliest Buddhist writings.
According to these accounts, for pragmatic and ethical reasons, the Buddha rejected both determinism and indeterminism as understood at that time. Rather than asking the metaphysical question of whether already humans have free will, Buddhist tradition takes a more pragmatic approach, exploring ways in which we can acquire greater freedom to make wise choices that are truly conducive to our own and others’ genuine well-being. One key to achieving such freedom is the cultivation of attentional skills so that one can deliberately focus one’s attention with continuity and clarity on one’s chosen object.
A second theme is the cultivation of insight into the manner in which our own attitudes shape experience, allowing for the possibility of altering not only the way we experience events in the present, but also how we are influenced by our memories of the past.
Finally, the Great Perfection school of Tibetan Buddhism emphasizes the realization of the deepest dimension of consciousness — pristine awareness— which transcends the nexus of causality. This is regarded as the ultimate source of freedom and the ultimate nature of human identity."
In my reading, I recently discovered the four imponderables. Is this not related to the fourth imponderable, speculation about the nature and origin of the cosmos?
A philosophical discussion on free will ( whatever ) is not of much use, though mindfulness of intention and volition looks to be of practical benefit.
We can't defy the laws of gravity, but we have ways to work around it. Although karma, samsara, or fate may move only one direction, there must be a way to work around that as well, and I think that being virtous and practicing kind deeds would be a good start.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2015
It's also good to note that the decisions this experiment were based on have no crucial outcome.
Deciding when to start adding numbers and which numbers to use seems pretty meaningless and I could see anybody falling into a predictable pattern under such circumstances.
I bet the ones conducting said experiment were counting in it... Possibly without being aware of it.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited January 2015
@ourself said:
I would assume free will is just the ability to make conscious choices and act on them.
And that's right where I'd bring up Anatta. Consciousness, or awareness, is of the choices. Choices are among the "objects of consciousness". Consciousness isn't making choices. Who is making choices? What is making choices? It all leads back to causes and conditions, dependency, no interdependent agent. This is why I think the very notion is misguided, at least by Buddhism. The excerpt @DhammaDragon posted above makes sense... if the notion is itself incoherent, we'd just move past it and concentrate on what we can do to end suffering, to act skillfully, without needing a definitive answer. It's much the same as the self/no-self bind people get themselves into, because emptiness is not apparent when self-view is still present.
If nobody is making choices how does Right Effort work?
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited January 2015
@SpinyNorman Conventional vs. ultimate. Choices are being made. Conventionally we're making them... but in an ultimate sense, it's a completely interdependent process, an empty process. Right Effort works just because it's actually aligned with reality (causality) and becomes part of the interdependent arisings we are.
Just because we are bound by causality doesn't mean we can't understand and use causality, even if that understanding is driven by it! We're becoming one with the truth through dismantling of the illusion.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited January 2015
Maybe that being said, we can say "Yes, we do have free will... in the conventional sense." It's just like we say "Well yes, there is a self... in the conventional sense". This is why I referenced self/no-self earlier. It seems very much the same question. It's the ultimate sense that we're trying to realize; Emptiness, which reveals the illusory nature of the conventional. The conventional becomes a tool rather than our reality.
That's it. I'm done. There's no more I wish to say, I've probably repeated myself enough, ha!
Yes, I always thought that was a very handy invention by the Mahayana.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Just to respond to your post, I don't see the problem. Some decisions just don't take a lot of mulling over. Especially when the outcome is meaningless or it is a choice based in preference.
A predetermined universe is magic talk and you own your actions. It would take more than an exercise predicting behavior in repetitive tasks (in which it is easy to fall into predictable patterns) to say otherwise.
It just doesn't make sense to say it is all mapped out because that really does imply an absolute beginning and a planner which is an oxy-moron.
I agree our efforts could be better served by working to end suffering but I like doing mental exercise as well.
Some enjoy crossword puzzles and I enjoy pondering imponderables.
However, if we found out that we actually have free will it would ease some people's suffering. Imagine believing you don't exist and not owning up to your actions.
I've realised a lot of this stuff comes down to .
I'm wearing red glasses, your wearing green glasses.
Of course we are going to have different versions of what we are seeing.
I've also realised that the glasses change colour!
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@ourself said:
It's also good to note that the decisions this experiment were based on have no crucial outcome.
Deciding when to start adding numbers and which numbers to use seems pretty meaningless and I could see anybody falling into a predictable pattern under such circumstances.
I bet the ones conducting said experiment were counting in it... Possibly without being aware of it.
I was thinking about this today too. Setting up the decision to be made ahead of time sets up a scenario where someone could be subconsciously preparing ahead of time for what they may choose to do. Opposed to a split second decision when you don't know what is coming.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2015
The only way I could see a predetermined universe would be with alternate timelines where each conscious choice creates as many forks in the timeline as there are possible outcomes.
Everything that has any possibility of happening would happen and it wouldn't have to be planned. We could still possibly have free will though in a "choose your own adventure" kind of way.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited January 2015
Alright I'll drop in one final time, just to say pre-determined and deterministic are not the same thing. Deterministic doesn't mean "planned", it just means that everything is causally dependent (and interdependent). One moment follows another based on causal relationships. People who believe in determinism, which seems to be supported by Science, aren't generally theists who think a deity planned it all out ahead of time. That's another bowl of worms. Now I'm seriously done, because I could talk about this stuff forever, and I don't want to do that. Way too much of a headache.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2015
Ok but causally dependent doesn't mean that all causes can be traced and can't have wild outcomes. The double slit experiment I think proves this.
Of course everything is determined by causes but that doesn't mean said causes (or even the effects of all causes) are predictable. Einstein thought that was the case and that's why he didn't like quantum mechanics but hey.
I could talk about this stuff forever too and I probably will as it doesn't take much effort and it relaxes me.
There's something very soothing about knowing this stuff doesn't matter while having fun contemplating it.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@ourself said:
The only way I could see a predetermined universe would be with alternate timelines where each conscious choice creates as many forks in the timeline as there are possible outcomes.
There are some physicists who think just that very thing.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Yes, I think it came about when we were trying to figure out how time travel would work if it ever could. If this model is right, even if we could travel to the past it wouldn't affect the timeline we left, it would just create a new fork at the moment we arrived in the past.
Theoretically, if we got back to the moment we left the future, that futures past would be unchanged.
There may seem to be a few unrelated issued in this thread but non-self, the decision maker, absolute beginnings, creators agnosticism and multiple timelines are just a few of the worms that come out of the can that is the debate on free will.
@Tosh said:
What if the 'choices' I make, in the present moment are just an electro-chemical process and part of that process is that it feels like I made a decision? How would I possibly discern the difference?
You probably won't discern the difference.
Either in your choices or your feelings.
But I bet it will sound so much nicer to your wife if you say "I fell in love with you the moment I saw you" than:
"An electro-chemical process that sparked in my brain caused my tanha to get carried away by your nama-rupa, and threw me into a lustful set of unskillful kamma, despite my citta's claim that this could only be vibhava-tanha, honey..."
5
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I just watched the film "Mr Nobody" on Netflix and went hunting for this thread.
Each of these lives is the right one! Every path is the right path. Everything could have been anything else and it would have just as much meaning.
Comments
@SpinyNorman I agree. Gnostic atheists and gnostic theists both escape me. I mean I can understand believing strongly, but that shouldn't be confused for knowledge. That seems to be what many do.
And hell, we Buddhists can have what are called "mystical experiences"!
I suspect that a lot of confirmation bias goes on. People believe in God and then interpret experiences in a way that confirms their belief.
@SpinyNorman Yeah well I think that's the only way we can have so many gods that people believe in. Not to mention other things that are scientifically untenable like homeopathy, dousing, or faith healing. The lack of skepticism is the biggest difference that I see between myself and the majority of people. I feel like I'm in a small group, even if I'm part of larger groups too. Anyway I think we're derailing the thread now, LOL.
I listened to a Ted Talk which spoke about this. I think it also gives an insight into the concept of 'self'.
Maybe freewill is a flat-earth question (you know, a question which becomes irrelevant when the facts are known, such as 'why doesn't the sea water just run off the edge of the Earth')?
If there's no inherent self, how can there be a freewill for a self to direct?
@Tosh I'm with you. The more I've been inclined to Buddhist thinking, the less "free will" makes sense. It assumes some independent agent, when that's the last thing Buddhism is teaching. If someone defined free will better, maybe we could answer it more clearly, but I haven't heard anyone trying to define it. They just say "free will" and expect it to be meaningful. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't!
Buddhism is regarded by some as a form of mysticism.
Depending on my mindset on any given day I could argue for theism and non-theism. I don't pretend I actually know but only close myself off to possibilities that don't make sense. I don't fully believe any scenario but I know what makes most sense to me at any given time and am aware that could change.
No biggie.
@Toraldris;
I would assume free will is just the ability to make conscious choices and act on them.
What else could it possibly mean?
Because it seems we make choices before we are aware we are making them is only displaying how fast this stuff can happen.
Maybe thoughts are just faster than the average awareness.
Something going faster than the speed of sound passes us before it is perceived by our ears so it makes sense.
For those who love to overthink free will, determinism and evolution, I found this enlightening article by Allan Wallace on Buddhism and Free Will.
http://www.alanwallace.org/buddhistviewoffreewill.pdf
The abstract runs as follows:
In my reading, I recently discovered the four imponderables. Is this not related to the fourth imponderable, speculation about the nature and origin of the cosmos?
A philosophical discussion on free will ( whatever ) is not of much use, though mindfulness of intention and volition looks to be of practical benefit.
We can't defy the laws of gravity, but we have ways to work around it. Although karma, samsara, or fate may move only one direction, there must be a way to work around that as well, and I think that being virtous and practicing kind deeds would be a good start.
Deciding when to start adding numbers and which numbers to use seems pretty meaningless and I could see anybody falling into a predictable pattern under such circumstances.
I bet the ones conducting said experiment were counting in it... Possibly without being aware of it.
And that's right where I'd bring up Anatta. Consciousness, or awareness, is of the choices. Choices are among the "objects of consciousness". Consciousness isn't making choices. Who is making choices? What is making choices? It all leads back to causes and conditions, dependency, no interdependent agent. This is why I think the very notion is misguided, at least by Buddhism. The excerpt @DhammaDragon posted above makes sense... if the notion is itself incoherent, we'd just move past it and concentrate on what we can do to end suffering, to act skillfully, without needing a definitive answer. It's much the same as the self/no-self bind people get themselves into, because emptiness is not apparent when self-view is still present.
What is making choices?
If nobody is making choices how does Right Effort work?
@SpinyNorman Conventional vs. ultimate.
Choices are being made. Conventionally we're making them... but in an ultimate sense, it's a completely interdependent process, an empty process. Right Effort works just because it's actually aligned with reality (causality) and becomes part of the interdependent arisings we are.
Just because we are bound by causality doesn't mean we can't understand and use causality, even if that understanding is driven by it! We're becoming one with the truth through dismantling of the illusion.
Maybe that being said, we can say "Yes, we do have free will... in the conventional sense." It's just like we say "Well yes, there is a self... in the conventional sense". This is why I referenced self/no-self earlier. It seems very much the same question. It's the ultimate sense that we're trying to realize; Emptiness, which reveals the illusory nature of the conventional. The conventional becomes a tool rather than our reality.
That's it. I'm done.
There's no more I wish to say, I've probably repeated myself enough, ha!
Conventional vs. ultimate.
Yes, I always thought that was a very handy invention by the Mahayana.
Just to respond to your post, I don't see the problem. Some decisions just don't take a lot of mulling over. Especially when the outcome is meaningless or it is a choice based in preference.
A predetermined universe is magic talk and you own your actions. It would take more than an exercise predicting behavior in repetitive tasks (in which it is easy to fall into predictable patterns) to say otherwise.
It just doesn't make sense to say it is all mapped out because that really does imply an absolute beginning and a planner which is an oxy-moron.
I agree our efforts could be better served by working to end suffering but I like doing mental exercise as well.
Some enjoy crossword puzzles and I enjoy pondering imponderables.
However, if we found out that we actually have free will it would ease some people's suffering. Imagine believing you don't exist and not owning up to your actions.
I'm wearing red glasses, your wearing green glasses.
Of course we are going to have different versions of what we are seeing.
I've also realised that the glasses change colour!
I was thinking about this today too. Setting up the decision to be made ahead of time sets up a scenario where someone could be subconsciously preparing ahead of time for what they may choose to do. Opposed to a split second decision when you don't know what is coming.
Everything that has any possibility of happening would happen and it wouldn't have to be planned. We could still possibly have free will though in a "choose your own adventure" kind of way.
Alright I'll drop in one final time, just to say pre-determined and deterministic are not the same thing. Deterministic doesn't mean "planned", it just means that everything is causally dependent (and interdependent). One moment follows another based on causal relationships. People who believe in determinism, which seems to be supported by Science, aren't generally theists who think a deity planned it all out ahead of time. That's another bowl of worms. Now I'm seriously done, because I could talk about this stuff forever, and I don't want to do that. Way too much of a headache.
Of course everything is determined by causes but that doesn't mean said causes (or even the effects of all causes) are predictable. Einstein thought that was the case and that's why he didn't like quantum mechanics but hey.
I could talk about this stuff forever too and I probably will as it doesn't take much effort and it relaxes me.
There's something very soothing about knowing this stuff doesn't matter while having fun contemplating it.
There are some physicists who think just that very thing.
Yes, I think it came about when we were trying to figure out how time travel would work if it ever could. If this model is right, even if we could travel to the past it wouldn't affect the timeline we left, it would just create a new fork at the moment we arrived in the past.
Theoretically, if we got back to the moment we left the future, that futures past would be unchanged.
There may seem to be a few unrelated issued in this thread but non-self, the decision maker, absolute beginnings, creators agnosticism and multiple timelines are just a few of the worms that come out of the can that is the debate on free will.
Yes, infinite branches of reality flowing from each decision node. Mind boggling idea!
Yes, Buddhist practice is like gradually removing the colour tint from a lens.
You probably won't discern the difference.
Either in your choices or your feelings.
But I bet it will sound so much nicer to your wife if you say "I fell in love with you the moment I saw you" than:
"An electro-chemical process that sparked in my brain caused my tanha to get carried away by your nama-rupa, and threw me into a lustful set of unskillful kamma, despite my citta's claim that this could only be vibhava-tanha, honey..."
I just watched the film "Mr Nobody" on Netflix and went hunting for this thread.