A belief or philosophy about free will is not something concrete like a knee -cap.
In your understanding, yes.
I told you my concept of free-will yesterday in post #61 at the top of page 5 of this thread.
You want me to define my purposes within purposes set forth by other people. This is where I assert the power of the individual, or the observer. I am the observer in my life. My philosophies serve me. Therefore I don't choose philosophies that don't serve me. For example, I do not use medical illness models. I use prevention models, although they are the norm. Therefore rather than treat illness when I am sick, I prevent illness. And I recognize signs of illness before they are fully manifest, and head them off before I have manifested full-blown illness.
The basics of mental illness for example can be culturally perceived as natural mystic traits, or as illness. Because I believe in the former, I have that experience. When I believed in illness and western reductionist medicine, I lived out illness. When I believed my consciousness was the result of determinants through time, I lived the outcome of those causes--and I have had some awful causes in my life, so the outcome was equally awful. When I developed the philosophy that 'now' is they only time we have, and that we are never ever in the past or future, and that the idea of the past is merely a thought, I tapped into my potential that is all around me. I developed the idea that I can change all of my thoughts, even the one's pertaining to the past. I can also change my emotional experiences from the past. I can recreate myself in each moment based on the thoughts I give my power to and perpetuate. I have come to dramatically loosen the hold of determinants over me, while grounding myself in the now, in my potential which has been there all along. For many people, this is the untapped power of the brain or will. For me, I focus on tapping this power. Therefore, I'm not interested in personally adopting any theory or philosophy that is framed in such a way that it implies that what I am doing does not work.
Your belief in free-will is a determinant to your behavior, and thus why it's sometimes referred to as "the neccissary illusion of free-will". It doesn't change how your brain actually works, it just changes your dream.
You can deny physical reality all you want, it still exists, it still affects you, nothing can change that. If you don't want to acknowledge the physical world, why even talk to me about this? Just imagine I don't exist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The scientific community often discovers truth through opposing views.
This is some dude talking about stuff he doesn't understand. Perhaps he understands some of it, but not all. Which is why I give credit to his own personal work with front-back gamma coherence, but not quantum physics.
I agree that they hone theories through opposing views. And they may hone truth. And discover new theories. However, the idea that if enough people agree on something makes it true doesn't work for me. What is true is true independent of people's opinions.
You may be right about the dude. It's also possible that he is talking about something we, or the other scientists don't yet understand--hence the fact that he is presenting a new theory. People are notorious for denying changes if it causes cognitive dissonance--scientists, too. It takes a process before people come around to new ideas, so it makes sense that there is disagreement with all emergent theories. I will be interested to find out what is commonly accepted in 10 years. That will give me a clearer idea of what is "true" than opposing views right off the bat upon hearing a new idea.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I agree that they hone theories through opposing views. And they may hone truth. And discover new theories. However, the idea that if enough people agree on something makes it true doesn't work for me. What is true is true independent of people's opinions.
You may be right about the dude. It's also possible that he is talking about something we, or the other scientists don't yet understand--hence the fact that he is presenting a new theory. People are notorious for denying changes if it causes cognitive dissonance--scientists, too. It takes a process before people come around to new ideas, so it makes sense that there is disagreement with all emergent theories. I will be interested to find out what is commonly accepted in 10 years. That will give me a clearer idea of what is "true" than opposing views right off the bat upon hearing a new idea.
I don't see how a neuroscientist studying gamma waves can postulate a break-through theory on quantum physics. Seems kind of far-fetched.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Your belief in free-will is a determinant to your behavior, and thus why it's sometimes referred to as "the neccissary illusion of free-will". It doesn't change how your brain actually works, it just changes your dream.
Did you forget that I have changed how my brain works in terms of numerous very obvious disorders?
You can deny physical reality all you want, it still exists, it still affects you, nothing can change that. If you don't want to acknowledge the physical world, why even talk to me about this? Just imagine I don't exist.
Show me where I'm denying the physical world? The cornerstone of my belief is accepting what exists. I take an active role with the physical world. I acknowledge how it affects me and then I respond to turn a situation into something that is conducive to my happiness, goals and dreams. The difference that I see between you and I is that I focus on what I can change, which is my own mindset, so that my mind works in ways that work for me. (and for the record, I thought you also believed in doing so) You believe science and medicine and operations on frontal lobes will correct the problem of people's social problems. I believe my going into the world and teaching people to change their lives by changing their brain chemistry from within will provide an answer. We're both taking a different approach to the same natural world problems.
I realize I have absolute control on how I look at and process the physical world all along recognizing the physical world I am processing. Surely you realize that we have the ability to change our thoughts? I can not only mentally control how I experience reality now, but I can change my mental/emotional experience of past painful experiences, so that they no longer unconsciously control me in the now.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Did you forget that I have changed how my brain works in terms of numerous very obvious disorders?
Show me where I'm denying the physical world? The cornerstone of my belief is accepting what exists. I take an active role with the physical world. I acknowledge how it affects me and then I respond to turn a situation into something that is conducive to my happiness, goals and dreams. The difference that I see between you and I is that I focus on what I can change, which is my own mindset, so that my mind works in ways that work for me. (and for the record, I thought you also believed in doing so) You believe science and medicine and operations on frontal lobes will correct the problem of people's social problems. I believe my going into the world and teaching people to change their lives by changing their brain chemistry from within will provide an answer. We're both taking a different approach to the same natural world problems.
I realize I have absolute control on how I look at and process the physical world all along recognizing the physical world I am processing. Surely you realize that we have the ability to change our thoughts? I can not only mentally control how I experience reality now, but I can change my mental/emotional experience of past painful experiences, so that they no longer unconsciously control me in the now.
You can't actually, you can look at optical illusions and believe they are not illusions, but never-the-less they are still illusions.
What I'm referring to though is your choice to disregard philosophical concepts as real, regardless of wether they are or not. You can change the name of free-will and redefine it all you want, but the classical concept of free-will still exists. So why don't you state wether or not you believe in the classical concept of free-will instead of skating the topic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You can't actually, you can look at optical illusions and believe they are not illusions, but never-the-less they are still illusions.
What I'm referring to though is your choice to disregard philosophical concepts as real, regardless of wether they are or not. You can change the name of free-will and redefine it all you want, but the classical concept of free-will still exists. So why don't you state wether or not you believe in the classical concept of free-will instead of skating the topic.
Are you saying the perspective I use to look at my life is not real?
I do not claim that the classical concept of free-will does not exist. I'm saying rather that if it is what you say it is, it is not the whole picture for me.
As for 'skating the topic', I once defended you to soulsinging for the same thing. I'm expressing my point of view how I see it. Your point of view may be tied into the classical one. Mine is not. I'm not even equipped to talk about the classical one. I only debate what I know and understand. What I see in philosophies are the truths within the context. I'm sure I would study the classical free-will view and I would come to appreciate and understand it within the context it defines itself by. I might understand what you are saying. At the same time, I do believe I understand what you are saying and that it is valid within your context. There are many different maps of the world. It's interesting that although you and I have different ones, we've come to essentially the same destination. I'm also convinced that if we want to get really anal, we could come to almost perfect agreement. We could do so by deconstructing our differing terms and concepts, like we've done on the physical world stuff. However, I'm so convinced we do agree that I don't really feel the desire to do so. If you want to, I can--if I decide it's not a good plan, I'll back out. But, I feel that you can add to my view with information and ideas that I am not normally perceiving, such as when you start interesting threads, and raise interesting topics, etc, whereupon we debate, and are "forced" to consider a complementary aspect to what we naturally perceive.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you saying the perspective I use to look at my life is not real?
I do not claim that the classical concept of free-will does not exist. I'm saying rather that if it is what you say it is, it is not the whole picture for me.
As for 'skating the topic', I once defended you to soulsinging for the same thing. I'm expressing my point of view how I see it. Your point of view may be tied into the classical one. Mine is not. I'm not even equipped to talk about the classical one. I only debate what I know and understand. What I see in philosophies are the truths within the context. I'm sure I would study the classical free-will view and I would come to appreciate and understand it within the context it defines itself by. I might understand what you are saying. At the same time, I do believe I understand what you are saying and that it is valid within your context. There are many different maps of the world. It's interesting that although you and I have different ones, we've come to essentially the same destination. I'm also convinced that if we want to get really anal, we could come to almost perfect agreement. We could do so by deconstructing our differing terms and concepts, like we've done on the physical world stuff. However, I'm so convinced we do agree that I don't really feel the desire to do so. If you want to, I can--if I decide it's not a good plan, I'll back out. But, I feel that you can add to my view with information and ideas that I am not normally perceiving, such as when you start interesting threads, and raise interesting topics, etc, whereupon we debate, and are "forced" to consider a complementary aspect to what we naturally perceive.
What context are you talking about? The context of reality?
See, I don't mean to be mean. This is why I get frustrated talking with you. I am discussing reality, what exists within reality. I'm talking about the concept of free-will as it is defined by the philosophical community. I'm trying to discuss it within the context of reality. But, you are talking about other realities, or other contexts, other definitions of free-will. Changing the discussion, distorting it and making it incomprehensible. It's no wonder no one seems to know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a very simple thing, determinism vs indeterminism. There is no alternate reality that we can inhabit where this issue is not a valid one.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What context are you talking about? The context of reality?
See, I don't mean to be mean. This is why I get frustrated talking with you. I am discussing reality, what exists within reality. I'm talking about the concept of free-will as it is defined by the philosophical community. I'm trying to discuss it within the context of reality. But, you are talking about other realities, or other contexts, other definitions of free-will. Changing the discussion, distorting it and making it incomprehensible. It's no wonder no one seems to know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a very simple thing, determinism vs indeterminism. There is no alternate reality that we can inhabit where this issue is not a valid one.
It's understandable that you are frustrated hearing what I am saying, because you see things differently, and you don't understand my point of view....yet.
If we are talking about love, we can talk about it from different perspectives or contexts. We can talk about the brain chemical aspects, where we talk about chemicals and their interactions and what effects might happen when one experiences love. You might prefer looking at things from that context based on your background, and your natural wiring. You might look up lectures with scientists talking about chemicals in order to clarify your understanding. A different context would be the human interaction perspective, including looking at how the people feel in love, and what background the two individuals brought to their union, etc. I would be more inclined to looking at it from this perspective based on my natural predispositions coupled with my background. I would probably get my backing from psychology or sociology. Someone else might be concerned with their own personal feelings of love, only concerned with the happenings they are directly experiencing in their lives, when considering the topic of love. Each of these three contexts are valid perspectives to approach the topic of love from. Each of them take a different look at "reality" and each of them rely on different tools and resources for the different understandings. These three views although different are not contradictory in nature, with one being 'right' and another 'wrong', but instead, they are actually complementary to one another--each has something to be understood that the other does not. Do you agree?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Your belief in free-will is a determinant to your behavior, and thus why it's sometimes referred to as "the neccissary illusion of free-will". It doesn't change how your brain actually works, it just changes your dream.
I fully understand determinism, and agree that the illusion of choice through my life has been an illusion. I agree that I am a product of all my determinants. Then, when I talk about a different, complementary level of perception that goes along with the determinist view where I see a whole new level of choice, I can't be partaking of the illusion you talk about. The necessary illusion you speak of, if I am understanding, is for those who tune out determinism and live an illusion because they can't understand or otherwise accept how programmed the are. I embrace determinism, and prove that to you over and over by my understanding and complete belief in it, so I can't be looking at an illusion.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's understandable that you are frustrated hearing what I am saying, because you see things differently, and you don't understand my point of view....yet.
If we are talking about love, we can talk about it from different perspectives or contexts. We can talk about the brain chemical aspects, where we talk about chemicals and their interactions and what effects might happen when one experiences love. You might prefer looking at things from that context based on your background, and your natural wiring. You might look up lectures with scientists talking about chemicals in order to clarify your understanding. A different context would be the human interaction perspective, including looking at how the people feel in love, and what background the two individuals brought to their union, etc. I would be more inclined to looking at it from this perspective based on my natural predispositions coupled with my background. I would probably get my backing from psychology or sociology. Someone else might be concerned with their own personal feelings of love, only concerned with the happenings they are directly experiencing in their lives, when considering the topic of love. Each of these three contexts are valid perspectives to approach the topic of love from. Each of them take a different look at "reality" and each of them rely on different tools and resources for the different understandings. These three views although different are not contradictory in nature, with one being 'right' and another 'wrong', but instead, they are actually complementary to one another--each has something to be understood that the other does not. Do you agree?
I completely agree. However, we must understand the topology of the topic. For example Love; The lowest level of the structure of love is biochemistry. The biochemistry gives rise to the experience of love which makes the interaction of love possible. The interaction of love cannot exceed the experience of love, nor can either exceed the biochemistry of love. A real example of this would be suggesting that a physical object could be symbolic of love, for example a diamond ring. This appears as an interaction of love, based in an experience of love, and should therefor not exceed the biochemistry. This symbolism is what I would consider an act of self-interest, as well as trust. In-fact by providing someone with a material object causes an increase in oxytocin production in the receiving individual, then it would be an act of trust, and therefor would affect the overall biochemistry of love.. This is how we need to look at issues of morality or reality, we need synchronicity at all levels. The best way to start looking for synchronicity is at the very basic, objective level. Most behavior, if not all, boils down to self-interest. A person may contribute to charity to obtain social trust and respect. They may present a loved one with a diamond ring to maintain and develop greater trust with their mate and therefor enhance the experience of love and the interaction of love.
So when we are talking about decision making, on the very basic encapsulating level of decision making, there is no independent will. Within decision making there are several other concepts to consider, but none violate the basic fundamentals of the physical, objective, reality. I don't fully understand your perspective, and I think the words you choose to describe it tend to imply that it exceeds it's objectivity.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I completely agree. However, we must understand the topology of the topic. For example Love; The lowest level of the structure of love is biochemistry. The biochemistry gives rise to the experience of love which makes the interaction of love possible. The interaction of love cannot exceed the experience of love, nor can either exceed the biochemistry of love. A real example of this would be suggesting that a physical object could be symbolic of love, for example a diamond ring. This appears as an interaction of love, based in an experience of love, and should therefor not exceed the biochemistry. This symbolism is what I would consider an act of self-interest, as well as trust. In-fact by providing someone with a material object causes an increase in oxytocin production in the receiving individual, then it would be an act of trust, and therefor would affect the overall biochemistry of love.. This is how we need to look at issues of morality or reality, we need synchronicity at all levels. The best way to start looking for synchronicity is at the very basic, objective level. Most behavior, if not all, boils down to self-interest. A person may contribute to charity to obtain social trust and respect. They may present a loved one with a diamond ring to maintain and develop greater trust with their mate and therefor enhance the experience of love and the interaction of love.
This is definitely one way of looking at it. Of course you prioritize it this way, based on that you are wired to prefer the objective perspective, and therefore science and neuro-science provides the vehicle that works for you. This framework is natural for you.
In terms of the topic of love, I can be being myself, sitting with my boyfriend on the couch, and my behaviours and my psychology and who I am, can generate feelings of love in my boyfriend, creating a chemical response of love for him.
I can generate different moods. Everyday I deliberately generate moods of love, and infuse that energy in all of my endeavors. I do that so that my actions naturally and unconsciously flow from a higher order, in my view. This makes perfect sense based on the fact that I am wired to be aligned with what I see as higher order. So, conversely to your way, my spiritual/psychological ways can generate chemical responses. I'm fairly certain that you agree chemicals reactions can either generate an experience at the same time an experience can generate a chemical reaction. It's bi-directional. All kinds of effects are going one at all times, coming from different directions. All forces are not moving in the same direction. When we break them down scientifically, or in linear form to communicate about them, we lose the big picture and the system how it appears at a glance. Communication and logic requires us to talk about parts at a time, which keeps us distanced from understanding the whole. Whether the system is the brain system, or whether it's the family system. I believe we have synchronicity at all levels, only most people and systems of thought do not encompass that.
So when we are talking about decision making, on the very basic encapsulating level of decision making, there is no independent will. Within decision making there are several other concepts to consider, but none violate the basic fundamentals of the physical, objective, reality. I don't fully understand your perspective, and I think the words you choose to describe it tend to imply that it exceeds it's objectivity.
I am not sure if the above explains more of my perspective. My view explained above does not violate the basic fundamental physical reality. It embraces it. It includes it and transcends it. Like a molecule includes an atom and transcends it. Like quantum physics embraces and expands beyond classical physics. What I understand is that I use processes that are not commonly known, accepted or understood. They stem from a human potential most people don't even consider tapping.
What I am saying is just by flipping a switch in my mind, and deciding to generate the general programming of my thoughts, and eliciting my unconscious to go along with the program, because it is aligned with my unconscious needs, I become the willful creator, rather than the passive experiencer. And yet, I also passively experience my creation as well.
You must believe this is possible, or your would not work to change your own brain patterns. If you did not believe this is possible you would not want to stimulate, trigger and encourage others to wake up. You would not have complimented my myspace blog "Asleep at the Wheel of Life". This is the basic issue farfromglorified takes with you: if you believe we are predisposed by forces beyond our control, and that we cannot get control of that, why do you bother raising this issue at all in the name of social change? I believe you are aware that we CAN do this on some very strong level within you. And I believe you are attracting to yourself unconsciously the variables to further develop this for yourself.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So when we are talking about decision making, on the very basic encapsulating level of decision making, there is no independent will. Within decision making there are several other concepts to consider, but none violate the basic fundamentals of the physical, objective, reality. I don't fully understand your perspective, and I think the words you choose to describe it tend to imply that it exceeds it's objectivity.
there is no "fundamental definition" for "reality"--there may be a fundamental law that defines reality, but humanity does not know that yet, therefore "reality" is not "absolutely objective".
the fact is [exists]: psychology is subjective, and part of the Natural world.
the fact that angelica keeps relating various "contexts" is because without the infinite contexts of language--of which every individual is privy to the potentials of an exclusive set--then two separate individuals cannot communicate.
you want to say that because "the philosophical comunity" defines something then that is fact as they say, but that would infer fascism, not philosophy. philosophy can only lead you to your own conclusions and experiences, any other place and youve become decieved.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
"David Hume discussed the possibility that the entire debate about free will is nothing more than a merely "verbal" issue."
This is what myself, soulsinging, and apparently Rats of Multa in his just prior post are saying: this issue is about what words and concepts we each individually choose to express our view. For example, Ahnimus, you have called me a compatibalist before. And I see myself as a co-creator with God and the universe. You are adamant that I am wrong, and really, we're talking about the same thing at essence with differences in how we look at those things, based on our individuality and how we construct and verbalize the concepts we perceive.
"John Locke, for example, denied that the phrase "free will" made any sense. He also took the view that the truth of determinism was irrelevant. He believed that the defining feature of voluntary behavior was that individuals have the ability to postpone a decision long enough to reflect or deliberate upon the consequences of a choice: "...the will in truth, signifies nothing but a power, or ability, to prefer or choose"
This reminds me of how I discovered my will. I had obsessive-compulsive disorder to a severe degree and was literally compelled to act out actions each day, monopolizing my life for many years. This is how I learned that we are a product of our brain structures, and where I came to understand determinants. I was 'will-less'. During many years wracking my brain, looking for a solution, I discovered the window of opportunity that changed everything. This window of opportunity is dealt with in well-known book on OCD "The Boy Who Couldn't Stop Washing" as second level intentions in terms of free-will. I could not control my actions and my observable will, but I could control what I thought and felt about my actions. By changing my thoughts and perceptions about my actions, I effectively took conscious control of my brain chemistry and re-programmed my brain to become healthy. I stepped into this dimension of the power of the mind, and I discovered a magical world of immense untapped power that many cannot comprehend.
By the basic wikipedia article on free-will, it's clear that there are many valid ways of looking at free-will throughout all science or philosophical schools. There may be some general schools of agreement. At at the same time, there is a philosophical/psychological concept wherein humans are observed to start out ego-centered. We eventually progress to embrace cultural norms and used them for supports for how we perceive life. We trust the basic going ideology that is accepted, independent of whether we can know it's truthfulness. The next stage is beyond that where we are willing to go beyond normally accepted schools of thought in order to understand the truth.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Your belief in free-will is a determinant to your behavior, and thus why it's sometimes referred to as "the neccissary illusion of free-will". It doesn't change how your brain actually works, it just changes your dream.
You can deny physical reality all you want, it still exists, it still affects you, nothing can change that. If you don't want to acknowledge the physical world, why even talk to me about this? Just imagine I don't exist.
You may be right about the dude. It's also possible that he is talking about something we, or the other scientists don't yet understand--hence the fact that he is presenting a new theory. People are notorious for denying changes if it causes cognitive dissonance--scientists, too. It takes a process before people come around to new ideas, so it makes sense that there is disagreement with all emergent theories. I will be interested to find out what is commonly accepted in 10 years. That will give me a clearer idea of what is "true" than opposing views right off the bat upon hearing a new idea.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't see how a neuroscientist studying gamma waves can postulate a break-through theory on quantum physics. Seems kind of far-fetched.
Show me where I'm denying the physical world? The cornerstone of my belief is accepting what exists. I take an active role with the physical world. I acknowledge how it affects me and then I respond to turn a situation into something that is conducive to my happiness, goals and dreams. The difference that I see between you and I is that I focus on what I can change, which is my own mindset, so that my mind works in ways that work for me. (and for the record, I thought you also believed in doing so) You believe science and medicine and operations on frontal lobes will correct the problem of people's social problems. I believe my going into the world and teaching people to change their lives by changing their brain chemistry from within will provide an answer. We're both taking a different approach to the same natural world problems.
I realize I have absolute control on how I look at and process the physical world all along recognizing the physical world I am processing. Surely you realize that we have the ability to change our thoughts? I can not only mentally control how I experience reality now, but I can change my mental/emotional experience of past painful experiences, so that they no longer unconsciously control me in the now.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You can't actually, you can look at optical illusions and believe they are not illusions, but never-the-less they are still illusions.
What I'm referring to though is your choice to disregard philosophical concepts as real, regardless of wether they are or not. You can change the name of free-will and redefine it all you want, but the classical concept of free-will still exists. So why don't you state wether or not you believe in the classical concept of free-will instead of skating the topic.
I do not claim that the classical concept of free-will does not exist. I'm saying rather that if it is what you say it is, it is not the whole picture for me.
As for 'skating the topic', I once defended you to soulsinging for the same thing. I'm expressing my point of view how I see it. Your point of view may be tied into the classical one. Mine is not. I'm not even equipped to talk about the classical one. I only debate what I know and understand. What I see in philosophies are the truths within the context. I'm sure I would study the classical free-will view and I would come to appreciate and understand it within the context it defines itself by. I might understand what you are saying. At the same time, I do believe I understand what you are saying and that it is valid within your context. There are many different maps of the world. It's interesting that although you and I have different ones, we've come to essentially the same destination. I'm also convinced that if we want to get really anal, we could come to almost perfect agreement. We could do so by deconstructing our differing terms and concepts, like we've done on the physical world stuff. However, I'm so convinced we do agree that I don't really feel the desire to do so. If you want to, I can--if I decide it's not a good plan, I'll back out. But, I feel that you can add to my view with information and ideas that I am not normally perceiving, such as when you start interesting threads, and raise interesting topics, etc, whereupon we debate, and are "forced" to consider a complementary aspect to what we naturally perceive.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What context are you talking about? The context of reality?
See, I don't mean to be mean. This is why I get frustrated talking with you. I am discussing reality, what exists within reality. I'm talking about the concept of free-will as it is defined by the philosophical community. I'm trying to discuss it within the context of reality. But, you are talking about other realities, or other contexts, other definitions of free-will. Changing the discussion, distorting it and making it incomprehensible. It's no wonder no one seems to know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a very simple thing, determinism vs indeterminism. There is no alternate reality that we can inhabit where this issue is not a valid one.
If we are talking about love, we can talk about it from different perspectives or contexts. We can talk about the brain chemical aspects, where we talk about chemicals and their interactions and what effects might happen when one experiences love. You might prefer looking at things from that context based on your background, and your natural wiring. You might look up lectures with scientists talking about chemicals in order to clarify your understanding. A different context would be the human interaction perspective, including looking at how the people feel in love, and what background the two individuals brought to their union, etc. I would be more inclined to looking at it from this perspective based on my natural predispositions coupled with my background. I would probably get my backing from psychology or sociology. Someone else might be concerned with their own personal feelings of love, only concerned with the happenings they are directly experiencing in their lives, when considering the topic of love. Each of these three contexts are valid perspectives to approach the topic of love from. Each of them take a different look at "reality" and each of them rely on different tools and resources for the different understandings. These three views although different are not contradictory in nature, with one being 'right' and another 'wrong', but instead, they are actually complementary to one another--each has something to be understood that the other does not. Do you agree?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I completely agree. However, we must understand the topology of the topic. For example Love; The lowest level of the structure of love is biochemistry. The biochemistry gives rise to the experience of love which makes the interaction of love possible. The interaction of love cannot exceed the experience of love, nor can either exceed the biochemistry of love. A real example of this would be suggesting that a physical object could be symbolic of love, for example a diamond ring. This appears as an interaction of love, based in an experience of love, and should therefor not exceed the biochemistry. This symbolism is what I would consider an act of self-interest, as well as trust. In-fact by providing someone with a material object causes an increase in oxytocin production in the receiving individual, then it would be an act of trust, and therefor would affect the overall biochemistry of love.. This is how we need to look at issues of morality or reality, we need synchronicity at all levels. The best way to start looking for synchronicity is at the very basic, objective level. Most behavior, if not all, boils down to self-interest. A person may contribute to charity to obtain social trust and respect. They may present a loved one with a diamond ring to maintain and develop greater trust with their mate and therefor enhance the experience of love and the interaction of love.
So when we are talking about decision making, on the very basic encapsulating level of decision making, there is no independent will. Within decision making there are several other concepts to consider, but none violate the basic fundamentals of the physical, objective, reality. I don't fully understand your perspective, and I think the words you choose to describe it tend to imply that it exceeds it's objectivity.
In terms of the topic of love, I can be being myself, sitting with my boyfriend on the couch, and my behaviours and my psychology and who I am, can generate feelings of love in my boyfriend, creating a chemical response of love for him.
I can generate different moods. Everyday I deliberately generate moods of love, and infuse that energy in all of my endeavors. I do that so that my actions naturally and unconsciously flow from a higher order, in my view. This makes perfect sense based on the fact that I am wired to be aligned with what I see as higher order. So, conversely to your way, my spiritual/psychological ways can generate chemical responses. I'm fairly certain that you agree chemicals reactions can either generate an experience at the same time an experience can generate a chemical reaction. It's bi-directional. All kinds of effects are going one at all times, coming from different directions. All forces are not moving in the same direction. When we break them down scientifically, or in linear form to communicate about them, we lose the big picture and the system how it appears at a glance. Communication and logic requires us to talk about parts at a time, which keeps us distanced from understanding the whole. Whether the system is the brain system, or whether it's the family system. I believe we have synchronicity at all levels, only most people and systems of thought do not encompass that.
I am not sure if the above explains more of my perspective. My view explained above does not violate the basic fundamental physical reality. It embraces it. It includes it and transcends it. Like a molecule includes an atom and transcends it. Like quantum physics embraces and expands beyond classical physics. What I understand is that I use processes that are not commonly known, accepted or understood. They stem from a human potential most people don't even consider tapping.
What I am saying is just by flipping a switch in my mind, and deciding to generate the general programming of my thoughts, and eliciting my unconscious to go along with the program, because it is aligned with my unconscious needs, I become the willful creator, rather than the passive experiencer. And yet, I also passively experience my creation as well.
You must believe this is possible, or your would not work to change your own brain patterns. If you did not believe this is possible you would not want to stimulate, trigger and encourage others to wake up. You would not have complimented my myspace blog "Asleep at the Wheel of Life". This is the basic issue farfromglorified takes with you: if you believe we are predisposed by forces beyond our control, and that we cannot get control of that, why do you bother raising this issue at all in the name of social change? I believe you are aware that we CAN do this on some very strong level within you. And I believe you are attracting to yourself unconsciously the variables to further develop this for yourself.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
there is no "fundamental definition" for "reality"--there may be a fundamental law that defines reality, but humanity does not know that yet, therefore "reality" is not "absolutely objective".
the fact is [exists]: psychology is subjective, and part of the Natural world.
the fact that angelica keeps relating various "contexts" is because without the infinite contexts of language--of which every individual is privy to the potentials of an exclusive set--then two separate individuals cannot communicate.
you want to say that because "the philosophical comunity" defines something then that is fact as they say, but that would infer fascism, not philosophy. philosophy can only lead you to your own conclusions and experiences, any other place and youve become decieved.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
This is what myself, soulsinging, and apparently Rats of Multa in his just prior post are saying: this issue is about what words and concepts we each individually choose to express our view. For example, Ahnimus, you have called me a compatibalist before. And I see myself as a co-creator with God and the universe. You are adamant that I am wrong, and really, we're talking about the same thing at essence with differences in how we look at those things, based on our individuality and how we construct and verbalize the concepts we perceive.
"John Locke, for example, denied that the phrase "free will" made any sense. He also took the view that the truth of determinism was irrelevant. He believed that the defining feature of voluntary behavior was that individuals have the ability to postpone a decision long enough to reflect or deliberate upon the consequences of a choice: "...the will in truth, signifies nothing but a power, or ability, to prefer or choose"
This reminds me of how I discovered my will. I had obsessive-compulsive disorder to a severe degree and was literally compelled to act out actions each day, monopolizing my life for many years. This is how I learned that we are a product of our brain structures, and where I came to understand determinants. I was 'will-less'. During many years wracking my brain, looking for a solution, I discovered the window of opportunity that changed everything. This window of opportunity is dealt with in well-known book on OCD "The Boy Who Couldn't Stop Washing" as second level intentions in terms of free-will. I could not control my actions and my observable will, but I could control what I thought and felt about my actions. By changing my thoughts and perceptions about my actions, I effectively took conscious control of my brain chemistry and re-programmed my brain to become healthy. I stepped into this dimension of the power of the mind, and I discovered a magical world of immense untapped power that many cannot comprehend.
By the basic wikipedia article on free-will, it's clear that there are many valid ways of looking at free-will throughout all science or philosophical schools. There may be some general schools of agreement. At at the same time, there is a philosophical/psychological concept wherein humans are observed to start out ego-centered. We eventually progress to embrace cultural norms and used them for supports for how we perceive life. We trust the basic going ideology that is accepted, independent of whether we can know it's truthfulness. The next stage is beyond that where we are willing to go beyond normally accepted schools of thought in order to understand the truth.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!