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.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2016
@federica said:
I cannot decide whether it's pseudo science or not.
Pseudo or not, read, mark, inwardly digest and choose which one you are most drawn to. That I think, determines whether you DO have free will, or not...
The key is in the addy... When you see the word "probably" in a scientific conclusion you can bet your bottom dollar it will inspire a branch of pseudo science and a scientifically reviewed paper is better than an opinionated blog.
We can use logic to find out which scenarios are more plausible but that won't ferret out the actual truth as we are still dealing with hypotheticals in that we wish to speculate that this means that when there are other things it could mean.
Pseudo science will turn that "probably" or other such term into undeniable fact with flowery imagery.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@federica said:
Apparently science has proved that there is no such thing as free will, and that every decision we make is actually mentally predetermined...That is to say, we think we've made a choice, but in fact, our brain has already chosen.
It's certainly true that the brain does quite a bit of retro-fitting to events. For example, there is a famous experiment where people are asked to choose between two identical objects, and asked afterwards why they choose the one they did. A large majority said they choose 'because they preferred it', while in fact they were just choosing the object on the right.
But you have to say that the brain is a fantastic learning machine. From the moment you are a child, everything you learn goes into shaping the mechanism that makes your choices. It can't be any other way, because your talents, your genetics and your nurture make up that aspect of you.
So would it be expected if the clear sensation of your consciousness would actually contribute to your decision making? The only thing I have found to contribute is a greater sense of awareness - if you become more deeply aware of your mind it profoundly changes you. It is like widening your scope, giving you a bigger focus of awareness.
The dharma too changes you. It allows you to find hidden distractions on a number of levels, removing desires, allowing you to cope with emotions, find your compassion. But can I honestly say it allows you to move beyond the mind? What I have experienced so far is a streamlining, a removal of ambitions, but these are still things within the mind.
But then as a Buddhist i am barely a toddler
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
Apparently science has proved that there is no such thing as free will, and that every decision we make is actually mentally predetermined...That is to say, we think we've made a choice, but in fact, our brain has already chosen.
It's certainly true that the brain does quite a bit of retro-fitting to events. For example, there is a famous experiment where people are asked to choose between two identical objects, and asked afterwards why they choose the one they did. A large majority said they choose 'because they preferred it', while in fact they were just choosing the object on the right.
But you have to say that the brain is a fantastic learning machine. From the moment you are a child, everything you learn goes into shaping the mechanism that makes your choices. It can't be any other way, because your talents, your genetics and your nurture make up that aspect of you.
So would it be expected if the clear sensation of your consciousness would actually contribute to your decision making?
It would still be your decision though even if your preferences, the environment and past choices can determine your current choice, it has still always been you and your choices.
The point of these studies turns out to show that who you are determines how you will behave. This doesn't argue against free will it only solidifies it because who we are is an ongoing process.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I can't remember whether I posted a link or not (will have to investigate) but I recall reading recently about the fact that the brain doesn't store anything.
And there's the irony regarding my first sentence...
OH! I remember - here it is!
Which basically throws a spanner into the whole equation, @kerome!
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
From this conversation/thread and lots and lots of other conversations on another forum that deals with non-duality stuff, I think there's a whole lot of over-thinking about volition and all that sort of thing. I choose choice.
@silver said:> From this conversation/thread and lots and lots of other conversations on another forum that deals with non-duality stuff, I think there's a whole lot of over-thinking about volition and all that sort of thing. I choose choice.
I tend to agree, and I think why we make decisions is more relevant and interesting.
@karasti said:
I could see that, @federica. It's interesting to consider. I have moments where I seem to "separate" from parts of my brain and consider a different decision but the pull to follow the decision my brain has made is incredibly strong. I don't really know that that is. "They" talk about making decisions from the heart instead of the head, and I think there are times that has happened. But they are rare, and perhaps they aren't what I thought they were. The old "my heart says one thing, my brain says another" except not in relation to romantic love. It takes a very concentrated effort to try to operate from that space. But I'm not sure it's impossible.
I can see how this strong "pull" is perhaps closely related to tanha, thirst, craving.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@federica said:
OH! I remember - here it is!
Which basically throws a spanner into the whole equation, @kerome!
While I have much respect for essays at Aeon, it's not exactly a scientific proof. The fact that people can't draw a one-dollar bill for toffee doesn't prove very much beyond that people have crap drawing skills.
It's true that the brain is not a computer, it doesn't store a picture perfect image of everything you see for you to retrieve later. Instead memory is like an impressionist oil painting, distorted by emotion and vague with the dust of uncertainty.
That doesn't mean that it's mechanism, which we rely on for so many things, is not built up and improved over time by learning. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't have much luck with learning the dharma even at a relatively advanced age, would we?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well, hang on, Aeon didn't produce this paper, it published it. The author is a respectable long-time Psychologist...
Robert Epstein is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California. He is the author of 15 books, and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.
So he's no fly-by-night with poor credibility. I tend to believe that people like him, who have something to say, usually base it on their lengthy research and experience....
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@federica said:
Well, hang on, Aeon didn't produce this paper, it published it. The author is a respectable long-time Psychologist...
Robert Epstein is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California. He is the author of 15 books, and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.
So he's no fly-by-night with poor credibility. I tend to believe that people like him, who have something to say, usually base it on their lengthy research and experience....
Ok, but a psychologist, not a neurologist. I've read a few books on the brain written by people well known in the field such as Rita Carter, and they seem pretty convinced that the brain does have some intricate functions which do a lot to make us what we are.
Yes, Epstein is right that the brain is not a computer. But it is still the command and control centre of the body, where visual information gets stored, and all kinds of other facilities and functions performed. Brain scans and records of many brain injuries have led us to at least a rough outline of what it does...
You soon get into territory where you ask, if there's no way to step outside the universe, what difference does it make if we have free will or an illusion that acts and feels exactly like free will to the people involved?
If God could create a universe from scratch, then he could create one a few thousand years ago that looked exactly like it was billions of years old from the beginning. Photons from distant stars would be placed at the point where they have already traveled billions of light years already, etc. But since the universe would look and behave exactly the same in either case, it's an invalid thought experiment. Same with free will versus total, unavoidable illusion of free will. No way to test if it's one or the other.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@federica said:
Well, hang on, Aeon didn't produce this paper, it published it. The author is a respectable long-time Psychologist...
Robert Epstein is a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California. He is the author of 15 books, and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.
So he's no fly-by-night with poor credibility. I tend to believe that people like him, who have something to say, usually base it on their lengthy research and experience....
Ok, but a psychologist, not a neurologist. I've read a few books on the brain written by people well known in the field such as Rita Carter, and they seem pretty convinced that the brain does have some intricate functions which do a lot to make us what we are.
Yes, Epstein is right that the brain is not a computer. But it is still the command and control centre of the body, where visual information gets stored, and all kinds of other facilities and functions performed. Brain scans and records of many brain injuries have led us to at least a rough outline of what it does...
Yes, and how it does it. But brain scans can detect the neurological centres and locations within the brain that react to the stimulus or respond to it.
Brain scans cannot detect the way the MIND works, which is what we are discussing here.
And that is the role of Psychology.
Not Neurology.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited July 2016
@federica said:
Brain scans cannot detect the way the MIND works, which is what we are discussing here.
I thought that was a big part of what Buddhist teaching was all about?
Which probably makes us all more experts than Epstein...
But...
@federica said:
I can't remember whether I posted a link or not (will have to investigate) but I recall reading recently about the fact that the brain doesn't store anything.
... the brain was definitely referenced. Maybe it was my bad assumption. Admittedly the whole brain-mind-consciousness interface is a big hot potatoe, it is totally not understood how it works or what the relationship is, beyond the fact that "if I run an electric current through this bit here, you have a religious experience!"
Looking forward to the next 20 years of research, lol.
@Kerome said: beyond the fact that "if I run an electric current through this bit here, you have a religious experience!"
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think sometimes we can over-think things.
This absolute need to 'MUST' know, is exceptionally beneficial in a lot of cases, but sometimes I believe a little over-done in others.
It's a sad sign of the Western Mind (hah!!) that we have to have an answer, a rigid and logical explanation for everything.
And we rest dissatisfied, until we locate an answer that fits. We even rebel against something new, and wonderfully logical if we don't like the sound of it, and refute the findings because they go against everything we have hitherto accepted.
I use the term 'we' advisedly; I include myself, most assuredly, in the above critique.
This attitude, or trait, is actually mildly surprising, when you think about it, given that we follow a Calling that originated slap bang in the East/Orient...
The EASTERN attitude to "Life's Mysteries" (spiritually speaking) is that sometimes, things are just as they are, and are best left to be.
Even the Buddha himself refrained from discussing or teaching all the things he knew, had come to realise and had learnt... He knew the worth of K.I.S.S.
"A little Respect, a little Reverence, for the things we cannot see' is not a bad adage to live by, and I am wont to think that it wouldn't hurt us, occasionally, to just let things go, shrug, say "it is what it is" a little more often, and enjoy the fact that despite our thirst for knowledge, we can't know everything.
Sankhara ..."The term Sankhara is karmically active volition or intention, which generates rebirth and influences the realm of rebirth"
Dependent Origination.....
"According to Nagarjuna, the second causal link (sankhara, motivations) and the tenth causal link (bhava, gestation) are two karmas through which sentient beings trigger seven sufferings identified in the Twelve Nidanas, and from this arises the revolving rebirth cycles.[47]
To be liberated from samsara and dukkha, asserts Buddhism, the 'dependent origination' doctrine implies that the karmic activity must cease.[46] One aspect of this 'causal link breaking' is to destroy the "deeply seated propensities, festering predilections" (asavas) which are karmic causal flow because these lead to rebirth"
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yeah, but karma's not at the controls. Karma is action, it's a process not a manager....
Sentient beings trigger...
Karmic activity (in other words, what you do) karmic causal flow... what you do flows.
Karma doesn't lead....
Any 'sequence of events' has karma at the forefront....Karma is the flow....Cause condition effect....
Karma in simple lay person's terms (from what I gather), means "Action" and action means motion, whether it be mental activity 'thinking' speaking, or physical action ....and motion is what is happening, everything is in motion a state of karmic flux "anicca"....
"Impermanent are all component things,
They arise and cease, that is their nature:
They come into being and pass away,
Release from them is bliss supreme."
From what "I" gather....one can become free from the "bonds" of karma, ie becoming "aware/awaken" .... but not free from karma itself....Karma is what propels life keeps it in motion so to speak...
"For this to happen that must happen and for that to happen this must happen"
"We are just a bundle of vibrating karmic energy flux where at times life feels sweet... other times it just sucks"
The illusion is when one thinks one thinks one is thinking the thoughts....
I'm just karma in motion ...and "I" can't be trusted...
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
"You" are telling 'me'!
Without "us", there IS no 'Kamma'. In order for kamma to work in our realm of existence, we must be there to propel it.
The view that we have no choice but to follow kamma as it is the driver, is very much more of a Hindu concept.
@namarupa said:
I believe the idea of no control has more to do with ignorance and samsara than anything else. The concept of no control is just a concept or an idea than anything else. A free mind could possibly just be the key.
There's illusion of control is all. If you have never tasted ice cream in your life would you crave for it? Can you fall in love with someone you've never met or imagined? If you have been spoon fed your entire life chances are you would not be striving as hard.
@silver said:> From this conversation/thread and lots and lots of other conversations on another forum that deals with non-duality stuff, I think there's a whole lot of over-thinking about volition and all that sort of thing. I choose choice.
I tend to agree, and I think why we make decisions is more relevant and interesting.
I agree. When you understand why the inescapable conclusion is that free will is an illusion.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@silver said:> From this conversation/thread and lots and lots of other conversations on another forum that deals with non-duality stuff, I think there's a whole lot of over-thinking about volition and all that sort of thing. I choose choice.
I tend to agree, and I think why we make decisions is more relevant and interesting.
I agree. When you understand why the inescapable conclusion is that free will is an illusion.
It really depends on your idea of free will. You cannot escape acting how you personally act but that's just the nature of being from a unique perspective.
We can't help but be who we are and so even by just being we have a lack of free will but at the same time our decisions help shape the reality unfolding which is how we usually define free will.
@David said:
You cannot escape acting how you personally act but that's just the nature of being from a unique perspective.
We can't help but be who we are and so even by just being we have a lack of free will but at the same time our decisions help shape the reality unfolding which is how we usually define free will.
if i say 'if one does not react with knowing the reality (act with Right View) there is free will'
@Mingle said:
I've heard people say and I've read that apparently us thinking we have control of our lives is just an illusion. I'm having a hard time understanding it though. I can understand that we cannot control our thoughts or state of mind infact that helps me to be more mindful knowing I dont have the responsibility of making my mind feel different.
In a more litteral sense I don't understand. Surely control comes from choice and choice is something we definitely have. I can choose to stay in bed all day or I can choose to do something. If someone who was poor has now made themselves rich surely that didn't happen without exuding his own force on the world.
Can anyone explain?
-I would argue "life" is an illusion, therefore anything taking place within that context is illusory as well...
@silver said:> From this conversation/thread and lots and lots of other conversations on another forum that deals with non-duality stuff, I think there's a whole lot of over-thinking about volition and all that sort of thing. I choose choice.
I tend to agree, and I think why we make decisions is more relevant and interesting.
I agree. When you understand why the inescapable conclusion is that free will is an illusion.
It really depends on your idea of free will. You cannot escape acting how you personally act but that's just the nature of being from a unique perspective.
We can't help but be who we are and so even by just being we have a lack of free will but at the same time our decisions help shape the reality unfolding which is how we usually define free will.
The whole anatta doctrine is against the idea of free will. Who chooses?
@pegembara said:
The whole anatta doctrine is against the idea of free will. Who chooses?
The anatta doctrine is about our wrong view of "self". I disagree that it states anywhere that there is no free will.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@silver said:> From this conversation/thread and lots and lots of other conversations on another forum that deals with non-duality stuff, I think there's a whole lot of over-thinking about volition and all that sort of thing. I choose choice.
I tend to agree, and I think why we make decisions is more relevant and interesting.
I agree. When you understand why the inescapable conclusion is that free will is an illusion.
It really depends on your idea of free will. You cannot escape acting how you personally act but that's just the nature of being from a unique perspective.
We can't help but be who we are and so even by just being we have a lack of free will but at the same time our decisions help shape the reality unfolding which is how we usually define free will.
The whole anatta doctrine is against the idea of free will. Who chooses?
No it isn't. It is against the idea of permanence and solidity.
The answer to who chooses is whoever does the choosing. If you asked what chooses then you'd have an interesting question.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2016
Had to download, now in my folder.... but a good document to have in any case!
ETA: It's 17 pages long, and heavy going. Lots of text with no interruption. As a spoiler, you could skip the lot, read the last paragraph and basically get a loose gist of the document!
But it's worth ploughing through, if you really want to get to deeper grips with the matter....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2016
Ouch. I knew it was a bit long winded but didn't realize it was 17 pages, lol. Hard to tell on my phone. Sorry all.
The main problem I have with the assertion of a complete lack of free will is a mix of the 1st and 2nd NT.
I feel that without any free will at all, we would have no desire and would not feel any loss with impermanence.
There would be no dukkha inspiring us to work through it allowing growth, mindfulness or awakening. Right or Harmonious effort would be a farce.
Also I can't shake the implications of a set future that come with the idea of predetermination.
Having absolute free will would imply that I could be someone else or even breathe under water... That I could make decisions without having to use limited options.
Neither of these extremes make sense so it is not one without the other but another case of the Middles.
a complete lack of free will is a mix of the 1st and 2nd NT.
my understanding is same as above
and
at the moment my understanding says if i could perfected 4th NT there is a possibility of free will
in practice
when a perception arises if there is appropriate attention then there is no intention (no feed back to 1st NT through 2nd NT) which is applying 4th NT would allow free will one day
perception, attention and the intention are the key point of deciding whether one fall back to samsara or climb up to nirvana
@pegembara said:
The whole anatta doctrine is against the idea of free will. Who chooses?
The anatta doctrine is about our wrong view of "self". I disagree that it states anywhere that there is no free will.
In many places the sutta says to view things as not me, mine or myself. If even thoughts aren't self intentions aren't either. Read Anattalakkhana Sutta.
"Bhikkhus, determinations is not self. Were determinations self, then this determinations would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of determinations : 'Let my determinations be thus, let my determinations be not thus.' And since determinations is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of determinations : 'Let my determinations be thus, let my determinations be not thus.'
Choices are made. The illusion is that those choices are truly yours to make! Do smokers have a real choice?
If one make the wrong choice that causes suffering is it fit to blame oneself?
The vote to leave EU by the British was made with a metaphorical gun to the head. The ammo used is immigration and economy. The difference between using a real gun and a metaphorical one is only a matter of degree. That is democrazy. A small majority overturning the lives of many. That is the illusion Western freedom for you. How else do corrupt politicians get voted in time and again?
Can there be true freedom(free will) when one is under the influence of greed, hatred/fear and delusion?
@pegembara said:> The whole anatta doctrine is against the idea of free will.
How so? Anatta just says there is no permanent self or soul, no Atman.
The other thought which occurs to me is that pretty every aspect of the 8-fold path requires decision making,
Free will implies that there is someone at the driver's seat who is responsible for taking you where you want to go.
Who is doing the driving if the driver keeps changing?
There is suffering but no-one to feel it. There is action but no doer. There is nirvana but no-one to experience it. Visuddhimagga
I agree with this excerpt from the read that @David suggested.
As we have seen, the Buddha rejected the philosophical extremes of
both determinism and indeterminism and discouraged his followers
from embracing any view that might undermine their inspiration to
devote themselves to an ethical life in the pursuit of liberation. In
pragmatic terms, as ordinary sentient beings we do not have free will
to achieve what is of value within our range of circumstances in so far
as our minds are dominated by ignorance and its derivative mental
afflictions.
Saying there is no free will can be unskillful(confession time) for one in the early stage of learning Buddhism. It can be wrongly taken to mean no need to put in effort to follow the N8FP.
What it really means is things happen due to causes and conditions. If one has never heard of Buddhism is there any chance that he/she will follow the 8FP? Is one ever truly free from past and present causes and conditions?
Free will and determinism
This freedom to choose is also called "free-will." Do we really have this ability to make a choice and to act rationally always? Unfortunately, this ability to choose is not a capacity that is fully developed in the normal human being. This is why we make so many stupid mistakes in life, about which we repent later. Often we want to do something in the right way, but we find ourselves doing just the opposite. This is because our will-power has not been fully developed. Buddhist meditation, when properly practiced, is the way to develop our will-power, or free will. This ability is not usable until it is developed. Strictly speaking, it is not even a power but a capacity that is dependent on the necessary conditions. In other words, it is based on the principle of determinism. The debate about free-will and determinism has been going on for a long time. Yet these two ideas are not in conflict; free-will is deterministic. It is only by recognizing this fact that it becomes possible to develop this capacity to choose, using a proper technique based on the principle of determinism.
In a sense, meditation can be seen as the development of will-power, to control one's irrational emotions. Some cultures believe in a free-will that we are born with, which means that we have will-power naturally. But we know by experience that when emotion and will are in conflict, emotion wins most of the time. This means that w ill-power is not a power we are born with. It is only a human "potential" that has to be actualized through practice. We are not born with a fully developed will- power; it is only a potential. Biologically speaking, the human being, as a higher animal, has a more evolved brain, especially the fore-brain (the cerebrum). The difference between the human being and all the other animals is that all other animals are passively reacting to their environment. The human being has the potential to delay the reaction, to get sufficient time to think and decide which response to make in a given situation, and respond rationally instead of emotionally. It is this ability to choose the response that is called will-power. Yet every human being is not able to use this ability all the time.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2016
@pegembara said:
Saying there is no free will can be unskillful(confession time) for one in the early stage of learning Buddhism. It can be wrongly taken to mean no need to put in effort to follow the N8FP.
What it really means is things happen due to causes and conditions. If one has never heard of Buddhism is there any chance that he/she will follow the 8FP? Is one ever truly free from past and present causes and conditions?
Free will and determinism
This freedom to choose is also called "free-will." Do we really have this ability to make a choice and to act rationally always? Unfortunately, this ability to choose is not a capacity that is fully developed in the normal human being. This is why we make so many stupid mistakes in life, about which we repent later. Often we want to do something in the right way, but we find ourselves doing just the opposite. This is because our will-power has not been fully developed. Buddhist meditation, when properly practiced, is the way to develop our will-power, or free will. This ability is not usable until it is developed. Strictly speaking, it is not even a power but a capacity that is dependent on the necessary conditions. In other words, it is based on the principle of determinism. The debate about free-will and determinism has been going on for a long time. Yet these two ideas are not in conflict; free-will is deterministic. It is only by recognizing this fact that it becomes possible to develop this capacity to choose, using a proper technique based on the principle of determinism.
In a sense, meditation can be seen as the development of will-power, to control one's irrational emotions. Some cultures believe in a free-will that we are born with, which means that we have will-power naturally. But we know by experience that when emotion and will are in conflict, emotion wins most of the time. This means that w ill-power is not a power we are born with. It is only a human "potential" that has to be actualized through practice. We are not born with a fully developed will- power; it is only a potential. Biologically speaking, the human being, as a higher animal, has a more evolved brain, especially the fore-brain (the cerebrum). The difference between the human being and all the other animals is that all other animals are passively reacting to their environment. The human being has the potential to delay the reaction, to get sufficient time to think and decide which response to make in a given situation, and respond rationally instead of emotionally. It is this ability to choose the response that is called will-power. Yet every human being is not able to use this ability all the time.
The author is confusing free will with making the "right" choice. I do see what they are getting at but it isn't really an argument against free will.
Hindsight is 20/20 but that has nothing to do with the ability to weigh options and choose.
Saying there is no free will because there are no individuals falls flat on a forum where we can easily tell the difference between posters personalities.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2016
@namarupa said:
I agree with this excerpt from the read that @David suggested.
As we have seen, the Buddha rejected the philosophical extremes of
both determinism and indeterminism and discouraged his followers
from embracing any view that might undermine their inspiration to
devote themselves to an ethical life in the pursuit of liberation. In
pragmatic terms, as ordinary sentient beings we do not have free will
to achieve what is of value within our range of circumstances in so far
as our minds are dominated by ignorance and its derivative mental
afflictions.
Though I did post that they are still taking liberties with the definition of free will. It could be argued that always doing the right thing without having to think about it is a lack of free will - to have the opposite effect.
What these authors are saying is that we don't have the best options from which to choose before we start waking up.
That still doesn't mean a lack of free will but it does mean we are limiting our own options.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Interesting discussion.
Free will also has to do with one's planning horizon. If you say, what am I going to do right now? The answers are likely to be a lot more constrained by habit than if you ask what am I going to do eventually. In the first case you may decide you would like to go for a cycle ride, a nearby choice and an exercise of free will of limited scope, while in the second you may decide to go on a retreat at Thich Nhat Hanh's plum village in southern France, which requires days of planning, communication, invested money, further days of travelling, and so is a exercise of free will of much greater scope.
Ignorance and the other two poisons, greed and anger, all distort ones views on what one really should be doing at any one time, regardless of time horizon near or far. You could say that as long as you are in their grip, doing the right thing is hard because one's vision is not clear. One has a measure of free will, but the scope of one's choices is effectively constrained by their blinkers.
As one's awareness increases and one's egoic desires decrease, one has a changing perspective on what is important in life. The blinkers start to come off, and the struggle becomes more one to realise one's behaviour against the force of habit, than against a lack of insight into the situation. In my experience that is a cloud that lifts only slowly.
And yet most of the factors of the 8-fold path involve us in making decisions.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
And yet most of the factors of the 8-fold path involve us in making decisions.
It's odd because what I'm hearing is we don't use free will unless we make no mistakes.
If life were a maze without an exit then there is no free will. If one happens to find an exit, at least for that time being, the definition of free will would be justified. We could actually be confusing free will with freedom. I believe both free will and freedom exists in any context, or are we just having a lengthy conversation about an imginary subject?
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@namarupa said:
If life were a maze without an exit then there is no free will. If one happens to find an exit, at least for that time being, the definition of free will would be justified. We could actually be confusing free will with freedom. I believe both free will and freedom exists in any context, or are we just having a lengthy conversation about an imginary subject?
The latter. j/k. Is Death the exit?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
Also I can't shake the implications of a set future that come with the idea of predetermination.
Determinism says that everything has a cause. Predetermination says that the future is already decided. Often they are conflated but in my other thread on the frustrator effect, I think it can be argued that predictive knowledge of future outcomes causally changes the future so our choices can be deterministic without being predetermined.
Comments
The key is in the addy... When you see the word "probably" in a scientific conclusion you can bet your bottom dollar it will inspire a branch of pseudo science and a scientifically reviewed paper is better than an opinionated blog.
We can use logic to find out which scenarios are more plausible but that won't ferret out the actual truth as we are still dealing with hypotheticals in that we wish to speculate that this means that when there are other things it could mean.
Pseudo science will turn that "probably" or other such term into undeniable fact with flowery imagery.
It's certainly true that the brain does quite a bit of retro-fitting to events. For example, there is a famous experiment where people are asked to choose between two identical objects, and asked afterwards why they choose the one they did. A large majority said they choose 'because they preferred it', while in fact they were just choosing the object on the right.
But you have to say that the brain is a fantastic learning machine. From the moment you are a child, everything you learn goes into shaping the mechanism that makes your choices. It can't be any other way, because your talents, your genetics and your nurture make up that aspect of you.
So would it be expected if the clear sensation of your consciousness would actually contribute to your decision making? The only thing I have found to contribute is a greater sense of awareness - if you become more deeply aware of your mind it profoundly changes you. It is like widening your scope, giving you a bigger focus of awareness.
The dharma too changes you. It allows you to find hidden distractions on a number of levels, removing desires, allowing you to cope with emotions, find your compassion. But can I honestly say it allows you to move beyond the mind? What I have experienced so far is a streamlining, a removal of ambitions, but these are still things within the mind.
But then as a Buddhist i am barely a toddler
It would still be your decision though even if your preferences, the environment and past choices can determine your current choice, it has still always been you and your choices.
The point of these studies turns out to show that who you are determines how you will behave. This doesn't argue against free will it only solidifies it because who we are is an ongoing process.
I can't remember whether I posted a link or not (will have to investigate) but I recall reading recently about the fact that the brain doesn't store anything.
And there's the irony regarding my first sentence...
OH! I remember - here it is!
Which basically throws a spanner into the whole equation, @kerome!
From this conversation/thread and lots and lots of other conversations on another forum that deals with non-duality stuff, I think there's a whole lot of over-thinking about volition and all that sort of thing. I choose choice.
I tend to agree, and I think why we make decisions is more relevant and interesting.
I can see how this strong "pull" is perhaps closely related to tanha, thirst, craving.
While I have much respect for essays at Aeon, it's not exactly a scientific proof. The fact that people can't draw a one-dollar bill for toffee doesn't prove very much beyond that people have crap drawing skills.
It's true that the brain is not a computer, it doesn't store a picture perfect image of everything you see for you to retrieve later. Instead memory is like an impressionist oil painting, distorted by emotion and vague with the dust of uncertainty.
That doesn't mean that it's mechanism, which we rely on for so many things, is not built up and improved over time by learning. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't have much luck with learning the dharma even at a relatively advanced age, would we?
Well, hang on, Aeon didn't produce this paper, it published it. The author is a respectable long-time Psychologist...
So he's no fly-by-night with poor credibility. I tend to believe that people like him, who have something to say, usually base it on their lengthy research and experience....
Ok, but a psychologist, not a neurologist. I've read a few books on the brain written by people well known in the field such as Rita Carter, and they seem pretty convinced that the brain does have some intricate functions which do a lot to make us what we are.
Yes, Epstein is right that the brain is not a computer. But it is still the command and control centre of the body, where visual information gets stored, and all kinds of other facilities and functions performed. Brain scans and records of many brain injuries have led us to at least a rough outline of what it does...
You soon get into territory where you ask, if there's no way to step outside the universe, what difference does it make if we have free will or an illusion that acts and feels exactly like free will to the people involved?
If God could create a universe from scratch, then he could create one a few thousand years ago that looked exactly like it was billions of years old from the beginning. Photons from distant stars would be placed at the point where they have already traveled billions of light years already, etc. But since the universe would look and behave exactly the same in either case, it's an invalid thought experiment. Same with free will versus total, unavoidable illusion of free will. No way to test if it's one or the other.
Yes, and how it does it. But brain scans can detect the neurological centres and locations within the brain that react to the stimulus or respond to it.
Brain scans cannot detect the way the MIND works, which is what we are discussing here.
And that is the role of Psychology.
Not Neurology.
I thought that was a big part of what Buddhist teaching was all about?
Which probably makes us all more experts than Epstein...
But...
... the brain was definitely referenced. Maybe it was my bad assumption. Admittedly the whole brain-mind-consciousness interface is a big hot potatoe, it is totally not understood how it works or what the relationship is, beyond the fact that "if I run an electric current through this bit here, you have a religious experience!"
Looking forward to the next 20 years of research, lol.
I think sometimes we can over-think things.
This absolute need to 'MUST' know, is exceptionally beneficial in a lot of cases, but sometimes I believe a little over-done in others.
It's a sad sign of the Western Mind (hah!!) that we have to have an answer, a rigid and logical explanation for everything.
And we rest dissatisfied, until we locate an answer that fits. We even rebel against something new, and wonderfully logical if we don't like the sound of it, and refute the findings because they go against everything we have hitherto accepted.
I use the term 'we' advisedly; I include myself, most assuredly, in the above critique.
This attitude, or trait, is actually mildly surprising, when you think about it, given that we follow a Calling that originated slap bang in the East/Orient...
The EASTERN attitude to "Life's Mysteries" (spiritually speaking) is that sometimes, things are just as they are, and are best left to be.
Even the Buddha himself refrained from discussing or teaching all the things he knew, had come to realise and had learnt... He knew the worth of K.I.S.S.
"A little Respect, a little Reverence, for the things we cannot see' is not a bad adage to live by, and I am wont to think that it wouldn't hurt us, occasionally, to just let things go, shrug, say "it is what it is" a little more often, and enjoy the fact that despite our thirst for knowledge, we can't know everything.
And probably shouldn't, either.
We run on autopilot, set in motion by past karmic events...ie, karma's at the controls....and the aggregates are just cogs in the wheels....
How wrong you are.....
Sankhara ..."The term Sankhara is karmically active volition or intention, which generates rebirth and influences the realm of rebirth"
Dependent Origination.....
"According to Nagarjuna, the second causal link (sankhara, motivations) and the tenth causal link (bhava, gestation) are two karmas through which sentient beings trigger seven sufferings identified in the Twelve Nidanas, and from this arises the revolving rebirth cycles.[47]
To be liberated from samsara and dukkha, asserts Buddhism, the 'dependent origination' doctrine implies that the karmic activity must cease.[46] One aspect of this 'causal link breaking' is to destroy the "deeply seated propensities, festering predilections" (asavas) which are karmic causal flow because these lead to rebirth"
Yeah, but karma's not at the controls. Karma is action, it's a process not a manager....
Sentient beings trigger...
Karmic activity (in other words, what you do) karmic causal flow... what you do flows.
Karma doesn't lead....
Any 'sequence of events' has karma at the forefront....Karma is the flow....Cause condition effect....
Karma in simple lay person's terms (from what I gather), means "Action" and action means motion, whether it be mental activity 'thinking' speaking, or physical action ....and motion is what is happening, everything is in motion a state of karmic flux "anicca"....
"Impermanent are all component things,
They arise and cease, that is their nature:
They come into being and pass away,
Release from them is bliss supreme."
From what "I" gather....one can become free from the "bonds" of karma, ie becoming "aware/awaken" .... but not free from karma itself....Karma is what propels life keeps it in motion so to speak...
"For this to happen that must happen and for that to happen this must happen"
"We are just a bundle of vibrating karmic energy flux where at times life feels sweet... other times it just sucks"
The illusion is when one thinks one thinks one is thinking the thoughts....
I'm just karma in motion ...and "I" can't be trusted...
"You" are telling 'me'!
Without "us", there IS no 'Kamma'. In order for kamma to work in our realm of existence, we must be there to propel it.
The view that we have no choice but to follow kamma as it is the driver, is very much more of a Hindu concept.
Or so I was led to believe.
There's illusion of control is all. If you have never tasted ice cream in your life would you crave for it? Can you fall in love with someone you've never met or imagined? If you have been spoon fed your entire life chances are you would not be striving as hard.
I agree. When you understand why the inescapable conclusion is that free will is an illusion.
It really depends on your idea of free will. You cannot escape acting how you personally act but that's just the nature of being from a unique perspective.
We can't help but be who we are and so even by just being we have a lack of free will but at the same time our decisions help shape the reality unfolding which is how we usually define free will.
if i say 'if one does not react with knowing the reality (act with Right View) there is free will'
-I would argue "life" is an illusion, therefore anything taking place within that context is illusory as well...
The whole anatta doctrine is against the idea of free will. Who chooses?
The anatta doctrine is about our wrong view of "self". I disagree that it states anywhere that there is no free will.
No it isn't. It is against the idea of permanence and solidity.
The answer to who chooses is whoever does the choosing. If you asked what chooses then you'd have an interesting question.
I'm hoping this works.
I found this a good read on the subject.
Had to download, now in my folder.... but a good document to have in any case!
ETA: It's 17 pages long, and heavy going. Lots of text with no interruption. As a spoiler, you could skip the lot, read the last paragraph and basically get a loose gist of the document!
But it's worth ploughing through, if you really want to get to deeper grips with the matter....
Ouch. I knew it was a bit long winded but didn't realize it was 17 pages, lol. Hard to tell on my phone. Sorry all.
The main problem I have with the assertion of a complete lack of free will is a mix of the 1st and 2nd NT.
I feel that without any free will at all, we would have no desire and would not feel any loss with impermanence.
There would be no dukkha inspiring us to work through it allowing growth, mindfulness or awakening. Right or Harmonious effort would be a farce.
Also I can't shake the implications of a set future that come with the idea of predetermination.
Having absolute free will would imply that I could be someone else or even breathe under water... That I could make decisions without having to use limited options.
Neither of these extremes make sense so it is not one without the other but another case of the Middles.
How so? Anatta just says there is no permanent self or soul, no Atman.
The other thought which occurs to me is that pretty every aspect of the 8-fold path requires decision making,
my understanding is same as above
and
at the moment my understanding says if i could perfected 4th NT there is a possibility of free will
in practice
when a perception arises if there is appropriate attention then there is no intention (no feed back to 1st NT through 2nd NT) which is applying 4th NT would allow free will one day
perception, attention and the intention are the key point of deciding whether one fall back to samsara or climb up to nirvana
In many places the sutta says to view things as not me, mine or myself. If even thoughts aren't self intentions aren't either. Read Anattalakkhana Sutta.
"Bhikkhus, determinations is not self. Were determinations self, then this determinations would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of determinations : 'Let my determinations be thus, let my determinations be not thus.' And since determinations is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of determinations : 'Let my determinations be thus, let my determinations be not thus.'
Choices are made. The illusion is that those choices are truly yours to make! Do smokers have a real choice?
If one make the wrong choice that causes suffering is it fit to blame oneself?
The vote to leave EU by the British was made with a metaphorical gun to the head. The ammo used is immigration and economy. The difference between using a real gun and a metaphorical one is only a matter of degree. That is democrazy. A small majority overturning the lives of many. That is the illusion Western freedom for you. How else do corrupt politicians get voted in time and again?
Can there be true freedom(free will) when one is under the influence of greed, hatred/fear and delusion?
Free will implies that there is someone at the driver's seat who is responsible for taking you where you want to go.
Who is doing the driving if the driver keeps changing?
And yet the opinions we post here have a certain consistency. It's a puzzle.
Everyone thinks they are right when that is obviously impossible(or is it?). That too is a puzzle.
I agree with this excerpt from the read that @David suggested.
As we have seen, the Buddha rejected the philosophical extremes of
both determinism and indeterminism and discouraged his followers
from embracing any view that might undermine their inspiration to
devote themselves to an ethical life in the pursuit of liberation. In
pragmatic terms, as ordinary sentient beings we do not have free will
to achieve what is of value within our range of circumstances in so far
as our minds are dominated by ignorance and its derivative mental
afflictions.
Oh no it isn't.
Saying there is no free will can be unskillful(confession time) for one in the early stage of learning Buddhism. It can be wrongly taken to mean no need to put in effort to follow the N8FP.
What it really means is things happen due to causes and conditions. If one has never heard of Buddhism is there any chance that he/she will follow the 8FP? Is one ever truly free from past and present causes and conditions?
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=What_is_Meditation?_by_Madawela_Punnaji#Free_will_and_determinism
The author is confusing free will with making the "right" choice. I do see what they are getting at but it isn't really an argument against free will.
Hindsight is 20/20 but that has nothing to do with the ability to weigh options and choose.
Saying there is no free will because there are no individuals falls flat on a forum where we can easily tell the difference between posters personalities.
Though I did post that they are still taking liberties with the definition of free will. It could be argued that always doing the right thing without having to think about it is a lack of free will - to have the opposite effect.
What these authors are saying is that we don't have the best options from which to choose before we start waking up.
That still doesn't mean a lack of free will but it does mean we are limiting our own options.
Interesting discussion.
Free will also has to do with one's planning horizon. If you say, what am I going to do right now? The answers are likely to be a lot more constrained by habit than if you ask what am I going to do eventually. In the first case you may decide you would like to go for a cycle ride, a nearby choice and an exercise of free will of limited scope, while in the second you may decide to go on a retreat at Thich Nhat Hanh's plum village in southern France, which requires days of planning, communication, invested money, further days of travelling, and so is a exercise of free will of much greater scope.
Ignorance and the other two poisons, greed and anger, all distort ones views on what one really should be doing at any one time, regardless of time horizon near or far. You could say that as long as you are in their grip, doing the right thing is hard because one's vision is not clear. One has a measure of free will, but the scope of one's choices is effectively constrained by their blinkers.
As one's awareness increases and one's egoic desires decrease, one has a changing perspective on what is important in life. The blinkers start to come off, and the struggle becomes more one to realise one's behaviour against the force of habit, than against a lack of insight into the situation. In my experience that is a cloud that lifts only slowly.
And yet most of the factors of the 8-fold path involve us in making decisions.
It's odd because what I'm hearing is we don't use free will unless we make no mistakes.
If life were a maze without an exit then there is no free will. If one happens to find an exit, at least for that time being, the definition of free will would be justified. We could actually be confusing free will with freedom. I believe both free will and freedom exists in any context, or are we just having a lengthy conversation about an imginary subject?
Oi dunno.
The latter. j/k. Is Death the exit?
Determinism says that everything has a cause. Predetermination says that the future is already decided. Often they are conflated but in my other thread on the frustrator effect, I think it can be argued that predictive knowledge of future outcomes causally changes the future so our choices can be deterministic without being predetermined.