100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Free Will | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 01/09/09 11:16 AM
|
|
Since you don't seem to understand my examples I will try to answer your questions more directly. Q:#1 So how is your self directed will any different then your programming? Programing initiates automatic responses and actions, self directed will requires creativity and imagination. (Have you ever seen the movie "Short Circuit"? about a military robot that was struck by lightning and became "alive?") That is a good example. But... ((That is something a computer (or programed robot) does not have. You cannot program a computer to have new ideas or to be creative or to have feelings, imagination or to develop its own preferences or opinions.)) Q#2. If one action is programming, and another is self directed will what would show the difference? A robot or computer does not truly think or imagine, it only responds to programing. The difference is imagination and feeling. The difference is the creative faculty. The creative faculty does not exist in a computer or programed machine, biological or otherwise. It exists with the will and the true thinking center of human consciousness. You are talking about your ideas being real but using fiction to describe it and do not see the disconnect . . . What is creativity? If we took a long list of all possible solutions to a problem and used our mental faculties to analyze this available list . . . where would creativity come in? I think the reason you cannot see how people are capable of these things without your ideas is that it takes a reductionist view of these capabilities, to say we cannot code software currently that has these capabilities and that is somehow proof of your ideas does NOT follow. Evolution has been tweaking brain software for a long long long time, just becuase we cant match that capability currently does not mean it cannot be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since you don't seem to understand my examples I will try to answer your questions more directly. Q:#1 So how is your self directed will any different then your programming? Programing initiates automatic responses and actions, self directed will requires creativity and imagination. (Have you ever seen the movie "Short Circuit"? about a military robot that was struck by lightning and became "alive?") That is a good example. But... ((That is something a computer (or programed robot) does not have. You cannot program a computer to have new ideas or to be creative or to have feelings, imagination or to develop its own preferences or opinions.)) Q#2. If one action is programming, and another is self directed will what would show the difference? A robot or computer does not truly think or imagine, it only responds to programing. The difference is imagination and feeling. The difference is the creative faculty. The creative faculty does not exist in a computer or programed machine, biological or otherwise. It exists with the will and the true thinking center of human consciousness. You are talking about your ideas being real but using fiction to describe it and do not see the disconnect . . . What is creativity? If we took a long list of all possible solutions to a problem and used our mental faculties to analyze this available list . . . where would creativity come in? I think the reason you cannot see how people are capable of these things without your ideas is that it takes a reductionist view of these capabilities, to say we cannot code software currently that has these capabilities and that is somehow proof of your ideas does NOT follow. Evolution has been tweaking brain software for a long long long time, just becuase we cant match that capability currently does not mean it cannot be done. My examples were NOT from fictional movies. I mentioned the movie "Short Circuit" in the following post only because I thought since my real life examples did not mean anything to you, then maybe that movie might serve to show you WHAT I am talking about. If you have to ask me what creativity is then I can see why you don't know what I am talking about. Computers don't create. Programs don't create. They only follow programing. There is no creativity in that. A person who does not use their will, is not creative. It is extremely simple. It baffles me why you can't see it. Oh well.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 01/09/09 03:01 PM
|
|
The self being transcendent of human nature, in this case, is the thinker utilizing the information being presented from the physical memory. This indicates that the self does not have time constraints and exists in the ever present “now.” So the self has no memory, it does not have the ability to recall the past or imagine a future, it is inextricably bound to the ‘my’ present. It; the self, maintains a time center, it is as limited as the physical being, only in another way. While the physical being exists in a limited sequential time, the transcendent self can only exist in the present. Di, Your conclusion that the (non-material) self has no memory is a faulty one. It presumes that information storage requires a physical vehicle, such as a brain and that the memory of the non-material self utilizes information presented or stored in physical memory or the brain. This is only an assumption on your part. I don't agree with it. Even if the non-material self exists in a different space-time (or even an eternal "now") there is still a record of events stored within the mind residing in the human energy field. Just because you associate "memory" with "time" or with the past does not mean that a record of events requires the same space-time environment as the place the event occurred. Events are recorded by the mind in relation to the experiencer or observer, and not in relation to a space-time environment. This is possible because the observer, the thinking center, which is the true self has its own energy field and that energy field maintains its own space-time environment. So everywhere the thinking center might travel, (via projection) even outside of this space-time environment, they take their own space-time with them. The true self, the conscious thinking center, indeed has its own memory and can recall past lives, and plan for future adventures. When the self operated within a different environment such as this reality, its manifestation (our bodies in this life) is restrained by the laws of this reality and this space-time, but it still maintains its own space-time apart from the game it plays in this reality. That is my theory, and hence the rest of your conclusion is moot point on this premise. You also said: What this implies is that the self as a transcendent entity, has NO ABILITY TO CREATE because it has no memory, nor can it envision a future, therefore, it cannot plan nor prepare. That leaves it sort of dead in the transcendental universe when it is not attached to a physical being. The self does have memories. It enters a body, by incarnation. This body usually looses these memories of prior lives or of the higher self except perhaps when very young, but soon those memories fade as the new person begins to develop in its new life. Creativity here requires both a physical body and the creative faculty of the true self, which is recognized as the will. In order to learn to create you must inhabit an environment designed to allow you to do that in a slow manner. (If you could just think about something and manifest it out of thin air immediately this would be a chaotic world with so many inexperienced creators incubating here. Most people do not have the kind of control of their thoughts.) You true self holds more information and memories than your physical body can hold. It sees more and knows more than you are conscious of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 01/09/09 03:37 PM
|
|
JB I do see you are baffled, but do not assume we don't get it.
Information is stored in many ways, but its always a state of being. Binary stores information in bits. They are series of switches either on or off. The longer the series the more information. Imagination is only 1/2 the equation, the other half is experience with how things work something you sorely lack. Since you failed to answer my previous question on what is creativity (I suspect becuase you cannot break down what it is) then I will ask another question again to illuminate what it is that gives things properties. What is information? What does it take for something to represent information? What is non material? Is a magnetic field non physical? Is light non physical? Is space non physical? Describe to me a non physical, none material information storage device. Describe its properties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 01/09/09 07:06 PM
|
|
JB I do see you are baffled, but do not assume we don't get it. Information is stored in many ways, but its always a state of being. Binary stores information in bits. They are series of switches either on or off. The longer the series the more information. Yes I know about bits and machine language and on and off switches of 0 and 1. Sounds like low level computer language. That was the first computer language. Imagination is only 1/2 the equation, the other half is experience with how things work something you sorely lack. I don't think you have the same experience that I do so you are in no position to judge what kind of experience I sorely lack. I am not a nerd or a scientist or a mathmatician and I don't claim to be one. You are right, I don't know HOW things work but I have a feeling for how they work. I don't think science knows exactly how everything works either. Since you failed to answer my previous question on what is creativity (I suspect becuase you cannot break down what it is) then I will ask another question again to illuminate what it is that gives things properties. What is information? What does it take for something to represent information? My definition of "creativity" exists on several levels. I don't know what level you are on, but I will tell you that on the physical level it is ideas and creative problem solving. At the lowest beginning level it is thought manifesting into things. As far as what is information: Virtually everything is information. What is non material? A better word would be non physical. I actually used the wrong word when I used "non material" because "material" things can exist at different levels of frequency on different planes of existence which are inaccessible and invisible to physical observation and senses due to their different frequency. Is a magnetic field non physical? Is light non physical? Is space non physical? I would define "Physical" is anything that can be seen, heard, detected, measured or observed from the physical state by beings living in the physical universe. Describe to me a non physical, none material information storage device. Describe its properties. It would be non physical but not necessarily "non material." It would be an energy field, probably spherical or egg shaped. Its properties are light, sound, and frequency. It contains energy and information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
am aware of these experiments and they do not prove that free will does not exist. Neither do they predict what a person is going to do "a long time before" they do it. The time lapse is merely a few or fractions of a second. But what these experiments do support is my theory of how the human "mind" does not exist inside of the "brain" (which is a holographic projection and merely a biological computer that processes information.) I have even mentioned these experiments or other similar ones in support of my theory. Instead, the mind of the individual exists within the non-material human energy field which has its own space-time environment and is the true thinking center of human consciousness. Decisions are made in the mind, not the brain. The brain merely processes them. The mind is non-material and operates within its own separate space-time. That is my theory. The experiments you mentioned above actually support that theory. There is a delayed reaction between the decision the mind makes as it has not reached and been processed by the brain yet. That has to do with the two different space-time environments, one physical, the other non physical. No it wasnt fractions of a second. It was ten full seconds. Did you even read the article? Secondly your idea that the will exist outside of the brain is fine, cause if we can map the persons decision before there even aware of it, (and awareness is what consciousness is), then your simply labeling your immaterial deity as being subject to the deterministic nature of the universe, and not actually a cause of any of the persons actions. For example if we can still map/determine a persons will (even if it goes outside our universe/space-time and then comes back to play a role in our universe) its still determinable in these experiments! You STILL lose! Even if the will is completely immaterial! Get over it already. So what do I loose? You have only proven that my theory that mind exists outside of the brain and within a human energy field is more likely. (I don't agree with your premise that "awareness is what consciousness is" but I have gone around and around about this subject on this club a lot with other people, so I'm not going into all of it with you.) If you say they can map a person's decision before they are even aware of it, then you have identified "the self" as the brain. I can't agree with that premise either. The self is not the brain in my opinion. What I assert is that the self is aware even before the actual brain processes the information in the physical world. Also, that the self is the true thinking center and it is conscious and can be conscious apart from the brain and the body. The will is still in tact. The will is the creative faculty of the thinking center that is the self. It is what sets you apart from a machine. I don't know why people want to spread the lie that there is no will or that it is not free, or that everything is determined. That is really absurd. We are alive. We are not simply programed machines. Even if we were, then you would have to answer the question.... who programed you?  Lets get this strait. You believe Self Awareness isn't the originator of decision making? You believe its something completely independent from the brain? Ok If that is what you want to argue for then you are pretty much saying you don't make decisions, self awareness is just that, to be aware of "yourself", and if "you" are not included in your decision making because the choice (was made outside of the brain then was fed into it) then you are simply an observer of someone elses behavior, ie you are just a puppet on strings and you have no choice or free will. See how the loop feeds itself? Do you honestly not realize how nutty you sound? I'm not trying to be mean, but seriously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 01/10/09 08:26 AM
|
|
am aware of these experiments and they do not prove that free will does not exist. Neither do they predict what a person is going to do "a long time before" they do it. The time lapse is merely a few or fractions of a second. But what these experiments do support is my theory of how the human "mind" does not exist inside of the "brain" (which is a holographic projection and merely a biological computer that processes information.) I have even mentioned these experiments or other similar ones in support of my theory. Instead, the mind of the individual exists within the non-material human energy field which has its own space-time environment and is the true thinking center of human consciousness. Decisions are made in the mind, not the brain. The brain merely processes them. The mind is non-material and operates within its own separate space-time. That is my theory. The experiments you mentioned above actually support that theory. There is a delayed reaction between the decision the mind makes as it has not reached and been processed by the brain yet. That has to do with the two different space-time environments, one physical, the other non physical. No it wasnt fractions of a second. It was ten full seconds. Did you even read the article? Secondly your idea that the will exist outside of the brain is fine, cause if we can map the persons decision before there even aware of it, (and awareness is what consciousness is), then your simply labeling your immaterial deity as being subject to the deterministic nature of the universe, and not actually a cause of any of the persons actions. For example if we can still map/determine a persons will (even if it goes outside our universe/space-time and then comes back to play a role in our universe) its still determinable in these experiments! You STILL lose! Even if the will is completely immaterial! Get over it already. So what do I loose? You have only proven that my theory that mind exists outside of the brain and within a human energy field is more likely. (I don't agree with your premise that "awareness is what consciousness is" but I have gone around and around about this subject on this club a lot with other people, so I'm not going into all of it with you.) If you say they can map a person's decision before they are even aware of it, then you have identified "the self" as the brain. I can't agree with that premise either. The self is not the brain in my opinion. What I assert is that the self is aware even before the actual brain processes the information in the physical world. Also, that the self is the true thinking center and it is conscious and can be conscious apart from the brain and the body. The will is still in tact. The will is the creative faculty of the thinking center that is the self. It is what sets you apart from a machine. I don't know why people want to spread the lie that there is no will or that it is not free, or that everything is determined. That is really absurd. We are alive. We are not simply programed machines. Even if we were, then you would have to answer the question.... who programed you? Lets get this strait. You believe Self Awareness isn't the originator of decision making? You believe its something completely independent from the brain? Ok If that is what you want to argue for then you are pretty much saying you don't make decisions, self awareness is just that, to be aware of "yourself", and if "you" are not included in your decision making because the choice (was made outside of the brain then was fed into it) then you are simply an observer of someone elses behavior, ie you are just a puppet on strings and you have no choice or free will. See how the loop feeds itself? Do you honestly not realize how nutty you sound? I'm not trying to be mean, but seriously. Get this strait?  You are not understanding me. I am saying that I DO NOT DEFINE MYSELF as my "brain." I am what I am and I am more than a brain. I am body, mind and soul. The whole package. (Get that strait.) I totally make my own decisions, more so than you probably. You are still obviously a slave to your programing and DNA. Have you no soul? No spiritual awareness at all? You think that sort of thing is nutty? I don't. You, are totally defining yourself as the body and the brain. You don't seem to be in touch at all with your soul or spirit. Seriously do you know how very common that is? Oh well forget. You are just not there yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read Walden 2 by B.F. Skinner and De-Hypnotizing Yourself by Hyatt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better yet, check out the October Man Sequence, first developed by Milton Erickson. Now I am thinking about that movies Vanilla Sky. Now the scene were they show his memory of walking with Ms Cruz, was just his memory of the cover of a Bob Dylan album- that scene made me so sad. Sorry Free Associating my thoughts, which were determined by my experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better yet, check out the October Man Sequence, first developed by Milton Erickson. Now I am thinking about that movies Vanilla Sky. Now the scene were they show his memory of walking with Ms Cruz, was just his memory of the cover of a Bob Dylan album- that scene made me so sad. Sorry Free Associating my thoughts, which were determined by my experiences. The human memory is very interesting. I have heard that the subconscious mind can't always distinguish real memories from fantasy or even what you watch in the way of movies and entertainment. People who get very involved with soap operas and the characters have been known to confuse them with real people. These characters become part of their actual life experience as they become real to them in their mind. I believe it takes emotional involvement to cross these lines between what is a real experience and what is not in these cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
do any of you realize that anything you choose to do is free will
if you adhere to society's rules you are choosing to do it you dont have to do anything if you want to it is all up to you but yes the government is a great big asshole |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe we are free to be free, but we can choose bondage and servitude if it serves us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe we are free to be free, but we can choose bondage and servitude if it serves us.  true
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do we have Free Will or are we completely determined? For the first time I believe I have complete free will.  Non-determinism |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sun 01/11/09 02:37 PM
|
|
The self is not the brain in my opinion. … the self is the true thinking center and it is conscious and can be conscious apart from the brain and the body. Obviously that’s one perspective and this point has been inclusive in philosophical dialog. /The self, in this philosophy, is able to integrate or synthesize but transcends the actual ‘process’ it’s involved in. This would fit some of the concept that JB is outlining. The stumbling block in this perspective is that “the self” and the physical being have time relational problems. The physical being has a limited existence; it seems that evolution, in accordance with natural law, has endowed the physical being with memory. In a being of limited ‘time’ that memory serves as a survival mechanism. We can recycle memory for the purpose of envisioning the future and for planning and preparing for that future. The self being transcendent of human nature, in this case, is the thinker utilizing the information being presented from the physical memory. This indicates that the self does not have time constraints and exists in the ever present “now.” So the self has no memory, it does not have the ability to recall the past or imagine a future, it is inextricably bound to the ‘my’ present. It; the self, maintains a time center, it is as limited as the physical being, only in another way. While the physical being exists in a limited sequential time, the transcendent self can only exist in the present. What this implies is that the self as a transcendent entity, has NO ABILITY TO CREATE because it has no memory, nor can it envision a future, therefore, it cannot plan nor prepare. That leaves it sort of dead in the transcendental universe when it is not attached to a physical being. This further implies that it is a simbiotic leech, of sorts, as it has no empirical ability or even reason to exist, unless it is bound to a physical being, but that physical being, in fact, nothing that is physical can be created by the transcendent self – it will not even REMEMBER anything that occurred while in its symbiotic position. This sort of blows the rest of your theories, related to transcendent beings, right out of the water. The problem I have with that is the assumption that all memory must be dependent upon a physical body. I don’t see any reason to assume that the “transcendent entity” cannot have memory that exists independently of a physical body. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The self is not the brain in my opinion. … the self is the true thinking center and it is conscious and can be conscious apart from the brain and the body. Obviously that’s one perspective and this point has been inclusive in philosophical dialog. /The self, in this philosophy, is able to integrate or synthesize but transcends the actual ‘process’ it’s involved in. This would fit some of the concept that JB is outlining. The stumbling block in this perspective is that “the self” and the physical being have time relational problems. The physical being has a limited existence; it seems that evolution, in accordance with natural law, has endowed the physical being with memory. In a being of limited ‘time’ that memory serves as a survival mechanism. We can recycle memory for the purpose of envisioning the future and for planning and preparing for that future. The self being transcendent of human nature, in this case, is the thinker utilizing the information being presented from the physical memory. This indicates that the self does not have time constraints and exists in the ever present “now.” So the self has no memory, it does not have the ability to recall the past or imagine a future, it is inextricably bound to the ‘my’ present. It; the self, maintains a time center, it is as limited as the physical being, only in another way. While the physical being exists in a limited sequential time, the transcendent self can only exist in the present. What this implies is that the self as a transcendent entity, has NO ABILITY TO CREATE because it has no memory, nor can it envision a future, therefore, it cannot plan nor prepare. That leaves it sort of dead in the transcendental universe when it is not attached to a physical being. This further implies that it is a simbiotic leech, of sorts, as it has no empirical ability or even reason to exist, unless it is bound to a physical being, but that physical being, in fact, nothing that is physical can be created by the transcendent self – it will not even REMEMBER anything that occurred while in its symbiotic position. This sort of blows the rest of your theories, related to transcendent beings, right out of the water. The problem I have with that is the assumption that all memory must be dependent upon a physical body. I don’t see any reason to assume that the “transcendent entity” cannot have memory that exists independently of a physical body. Exactly! That's what I said.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everybody seems to have lost interest. Nobody wants to discuss the topics anymore it seems. They just demand to see proof and if you don't have it, they think they have won. What ever happened to philosophical discussions? Where is the imagination? Where is the creativity? Where is the spiritual energy? I sometimes feel like I am talking to aliens from the planet Vulcan or some sort of artificial intelligence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The self does have memories. It enters a body, by incarnation. This body usually looses these memories of prior lives or of the higher self except perhaps when very young, but soon those memories fade as the new person begins to develop in its new life. Creativity here requires both a physical body and the creative faculty of the true self, which is recognized as the will. In order to learn to create you must inhabit an environment designed to allow you to do that in a slow manner. (If you could just think about something and manifest it out of thin air immediately this would be a chaotic world with so many inexperienced creators incubating here. Most people do not have the kind of control of their thoughts.) You true self holds more information and memories than your physical body can hold. It sees more and knows more than you are conscious of. So I was wondering why we “the physical form” would feel both emotional and physical pain? Why would we evolve the brain function we have that include the various mechanistic memories, and inherent survival instincts. I concluded that perhaps the simbiote or “the higher self” required this ‘programming’ in order to keep the physical form safe enough to traverse and complete Its ‘chosen’ or karmic course. But that brings up other questions. First, does that mean the simbiote or the higher self is the motivation behind our physical evolution? What about the evolution of all other life forms? Is it also responsible for that? The second question also responds to Skyhook who said: The problem I have with that is the assumption that all memory must be dependent upon a physical body. I don’t see any reason to assume that the “transcendent entity” cannot have memory that exists independently of a physical body. So here’s the thing, you have created an image of a ‘higher self’ that is non-material. Being non-material it is not confined to anything time relavent. In other words, it is eternal and therefore has no need of sequential time. So it MUST live/exist in the ever present NOW. So Its memory is not sequential but it must combine with logical outcomes in order to make sense to It (the higher self). Obviously that means it needs a storage unit for that memory. So the “higher self” has this massive memory capability with no physical storage unit to store it. If you attribute all this memory to various, I don’t know, maybe, particles that exist in vibrational magnetic fields, (I made that up) but somewhere this memory is stored and utilized. This higher self also seems to have the ability to force evolution, for the purpose of protecting what it needs for it pleasure – the physical form. You have in essence created a totally mechanist non-material being. It relies on Its programming, (that unknown memory storage unit) for Its motivation and for Its actions. You have created a non-material computer, apparently subject to some kind of universal law and therefore, It (the higher self) is neither God nor Human, but exists only as a running program of some OTHER natural law. All this theory does is create yet another degree of separation between “life” in the physical and the universe itself. You have not succeeded in presenting any reasonable explanation of the purpose for our own physical being, nor have you succeeded in establishing a reasonable explanation for the purpose or the existence of “the higher self”. But that’s if I incorporated what I understand of your theory. So continue by invalidating the connections I’ve made between the dots. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 01/11/09 05:37 PM
|
|
So I was wondering why we “the physical form” would feel both emotional and physical pain? Why would we evolve the brain function we have that include the various mechanistic memories, and inherent survival instincts. I concluded that perhaps the simbiote or “the higher self” required this ‘programming’ in order to keep the physical form safe enough to traverse and complete Its ‘chosen’ or karmic course. But that brings up other questions. First, does that mean the simbiote or the higher self is the motivation behind our physical evolution? What about the evolution of all other life forms? Is it also responsible for that? 1.The purpose of existence is to exist and find joy in existing and growing and creating. But if one only felt joy and pleasure, it would mean nothing to them and they would not grow, if they have never experienced pain. So pain is a necessary experience in order to collect preferences. The self usually learns they prefer pleasure to pain, joy to sorrow. 2.Armed with preferences, they are able to make CHOICES and have opinions etc. With their choices, they learn to create, find or attract the things they PREFER to the things they do not prefer. The "higher self" is the true self and whole self. (When you learn to make contact with that part of YOU then you will find answers to your questions.) But ultimately, YOU are in charge of self. (You in your physical incarnation.) Your higher self serves YOU, not the other way around. Your higher self is primarily interested in YOU in this incarnation and it is the force that will guide you and pull you out of trouble because it IS YOU. You can trust it because it IS YOU. (Who better can you trust but yourself?) Think of it as your personal guardian angel... but it is you. It is not separate from you. You have only to make contact with that part of yourself. You are never 'alone.' All life forms have over-souls and conscious beings that are in charge of their personal evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do we have Free Will or are we completely determined? For the first time I believe I have complete free will. I freed my mind and spirit the day I let go of all man made religions. |
|
|
|
|
