The Death of Free Will

[Nick_A]

If the personality is created by the fallen world

that's the thing, Nick, I don't believe that...I don't believe my personality, my mind, my soul are a product of the world...and I don't believe the world is fallen

materially, the world, Reality, is a big, mostly empty, box with a minuscule amount of mostly disassociated matter thinly and unevenly spread thru out...it is mechanistic, deterministic

morally, the world, Reality, isn't...morality is a highly local phenomenon, associated only with certain peculiar high-order clumps of complex matter that are unique because, while mechanistic, each clump of this matter embodies a particular, unique, non-determined sumthin' not born of this world, a reasonin', choosin' sumthin' that is its own and that is itself the moral aspect

materially, the world, Reality, is hostile to this unique stuff; morally, there always a sum'bitch 'round the corner lookin' to take advantage (free will is double-edged, a man can choose to do wrong)


Genocide for example is abnormal for human being yet it has become the norm

no, it's not the norm...if it were, man would not oppose it, be outraged by it, or even notice it...there is evil in the world (as I say, free will is double-edged) but it is opposed every step of the way by good


As you said the world eats away at us.

it does...materially, Reality really doesn't like high-order, complex matter...entropy is not our friend; morally, Reality, specifically certain folks in the world of man, entices and deceives...as a kind of entropy, these people are not our friends

literally or figuratively, the devil is a ravenger and out & out liar: he sez we're less than what we are...we really ought not listen to him

Henry

that's the thing, Nick, I don't believe that...I don't believe my personality, my mind, my soul are a product of the world...and I don't believe the world is fallen

I may appreciate the meaning of “fallen” differently than you:

“Fallen self—inner slavery is the condition of being devoured by one’s own emotions, attractions and repulsions.”

By fallen I mean governed by negative emotions and habits which support them. If we were born this way our position would be hopeless. But this slavery was an acquired result; a reaction to a temporary cosmic necessity. Our physical bodies arise from the earth and our personalities are largely created by family and surroundings. Our minds as opposed to our brains and the seed of the soul originate from above; a higher level of reality. The lower parts of the collective human essence have become corrupted so pulls the entire essence down and is called the “fall.”

Before the Fall the human essence was focused on its source or God. After the Fall the human essence, because of this corruption, became focused on the corrupted self.

Morals only exist because we’ve lost the ability to experience conscience so make up our own conscience and call it morality which of course varies from society to society.

My concern is how science and religion when not controlled by pragmatic aims, are complimentary so a discussion on materiality must satisfy both paths to truth: facts and values. This is not easy but is real philosophy

So IMO Humanity has a long way to go to avoid the next self created disaster so I learn from those who have discovered the problem like Simone who understood the necessity of uniting objective facts and values at the risk of provoking the growls of the deniers

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

[henry quirk]

If the personality is created by the fallen world

that's the thing, Nick, I don't believe that...I don't believe my personality, my mind, my soul are a product of the world...and I don't believe the world is fallen

materially, the world, Reality, is a big, mostly empty, box with a minuscule amount of mostly disassociated matter thinly and unevenly spread thru out...it is mechanistic, deterministic

morally, the world, Reality, isn't...morality is a highly local phenomenon, associated only with certain peculiar high-order clumps of complex matter that are unique because, while mechanistic, each clump of this matter embodies a particular, unique, non-determined sumthin' not born of this world, a reasonin', choosin' sumthin' that is its own and that is itself the moral aspect

materially, the world, Reality, is hostile to this unique stuff; morally, there always a sum'bitch 'round the corner lookin' to take advantage (free will is double-edged, a man can choose to do wrong)


Genocide for example is abnormal for human being yet it has become the norm

no, it's not the norm...if it were, man would not oppose it, be outraged by it, or even notice it...there is evil in the world (as I say, free will is double-edged) but it is opposed every step of the way by good


As you said the world eats away at us.

it does...materially, Reality really doesn't like high-order, complex matter...entropy is not our friend; morally, Reality, specifically certain folks in the world of man, entices and deceives...as a kind of entropy, these people are not our friends

literally or figuratively, the devil is a ravenger and out & out liar: he sez we're less than what we are...we really ought not listen to him

Henry

that's the thing, Nick, I don't believe that...I don't believe my personality, my mind, my soul are a product of the world...and I don't believe the world is fallen

I may appreciate the meaning of “fallen” differently than you:

“Fallen self—inner slavery is the condition of being devoured by one’s own emotions, attractions and repulsions.”

By fallen I mean governed by negative emotions and habits which support them. If we were born this way our position would be hopeless. But this slavery was an acquired result; a reaction to a temporary cosmic necessity. Our physical bodies arise from the earth and our personalities are largely created by family and surroundings. Our minds as opposed to our brains and the seed of the soul originate from above; a higher level of reality. The lower parts of the collective human essence have become corrupted so pulls the entire essence down and is called the “fall.”

Before the Fall the human essence was focused on its source or God. After the Fall the human essence, because of this corruption, became focused on the corrupted self.

Morals only exist because we’ve lost the ability to experience conscience so make up our own conscience and call it morality which of course varies from society to society.

My concern is how science and religion when not controlled by pragmatic aims, are complimentary so a discussion on materiality must satisfy both paths to truth: facts and values. This is not easy but is real philosophy

So IMO Humanity has a long way to go to avoid the next self created disaster so I learn from those who have discovered the problem like Simone who understood the necessity of uniting objective facts and values at the risk of provoking the growls of the deniers

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

yeah, we're really in different places on this stuff, Nick...but we're not enemies, you and me, yeah?

[Immanuel Can]

Consider that the endpoint of rationality is that all phenomena can be causally explained, in theory.

That's incorrect, and obviously so. Because either rationality is the basis of causality, or causality is the explanation for rationality. You can't have both being the cause or the effect.

Empiricism indicates that when the inner becomes the outer, the boundary separating rationality and phenomena fades sometimes to nothing, but energy is required to keep pace. Rationality can prove this outside of time for posterity, and inherent knowledge of awareness, and perhaps also the experience of recognition, can confirm the proof.

Nope, sorry...I don't understand a single sentence of that.

"Empiricism" doesn't "indicate" anything. It's a method, not an opinion. You don't say who "requires" or on what basis, the "energy" or what they're "keeping pace" with. "Rationality" is also a method, so has no opinions about "posterity," whosever you may mean. Nothing has "inherent knowledge," and you don't say who is "experiencing" or "recognizing."

That was a great wall of blather. Now, have you got a clear idea you can offer in its place? Say, one with a subject and predicate that correlate?

[Nick_A]

If the personality is created by the fallen world

that's the thing, Nick, I don't believe that...I don't believe my personality, my mind, my soul are a product of the world...and I don't believe the world is fallen

materially, the world, Reality, is a big, mostly empty, box with a minuscule amount of mostly disassociated matter thinly and unevenly spread thru out...it is mechanistic, deterministic

morally, the world, Reality, isn't...morality is a highly local phenomenon, associated only with certain peculiar high-order clumps of complex matter that are unique because, while mechanistic, each clump of this matter embodies a particular, unique, non-determined sumthin' not born of this world, a reasonin', choosin' sumthin' that is its own and that is itself the moral aspect

materially, the world, Reality, is hostile to this unique stuff; morally, there always a sum'bitch 'round the corner lookin' to take advantage (free will is double-edged, a man can choose to do wrong)


Genocide for example is abnormal for human being yet it has become the norm

no, it's not the norm...if it were, man would not oppose it, be outraged by it, or even notice it...there is evil in the world (as I say, free will is double-edged) but it is opposed every step of the way by good


As you said the world eats away at us.

it does...materially, Reality really doesn't like high-order, complex matter...entropy is not our friend; morally, Reality, specifically certain folks in the world of man, entices and deceives...as a kind of entropy, these people are not our friends

literally or figuratively, the devil is a ravenger and out & out liar: he sez we're less than what we are...we really ought not listen to him

Henry

that's the thing, Nick, I don't believe that...I don't believe my personality, my mind, my soul are a product of the world...and I don't believe the world is fallen

I may appreciate the meaning of “fallen” differently than you:

“Fallen self—inner slavery is the condition of being devoured by one’s own emotions, attractions and repulsions.”

By fallen I mean governed by negative emotions and habits which support them. If we were born this way our position would be hopeless. But this slavery was an acquired result; a reaction to a temporary cosmic necessity. Our physical bodies arise from the earth and our personalities are largely created by family and surroundings. Our minds as opposed to our brains and the seed of the soul originate from above; a higher level of reality. The lower parts of the collective human essence have become corrupted so pulls the entire essence down and is called the “fall.”

Before the Fall the human essence was focused on its source or God. After the Fall the human essence, because of this corruption, became focused on the corrupted self.

Morals only exist because we’ve lost the ability to experience conscience so make up our own conscience and call it morality which of course varies from society to society.

My concern is how science and religion when not controlled by pragmatic aims, are complimentary so a discussion on materiality must satisfy both paths to truth: facts and values. This is not easy but is real philosophy

So IMO Humanity has a long way to go to avoid the next self created disaster so I learn from those who have discovered the problem like Simone who understood the necessity of uniting objective facts and values at the risk of provoking the growls of the deniers

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

yeah, we're really in different places on this stuff, Nick...but we're not enemies, you and me, yeah?

That's OK. I know it's not the usual. Actually every time I see a commercial on TV for Henry Rifles I think of you.

[Walker]

That's incorrect, and obviously so. Because either rationality is the basis of causality, or causality is the explanation for rationality. You can't have both being the cause or the effect.

Empiricism indicates that when the inner becomes the outer, the boundary separating rationality and phenomena fades sometimes to nothing, but energy is required to keep pace. Rationality can prove this outside of time for posterity, and inherent knowledge of awareness, and perhaps also the experience of recognition, can confirm the proof.

Nope, sorry...I don't understand a single sentence of that.

"Empiricism" doesn't "indicate" anything. It's a method, not an opinion. You don't say who "requires" or on what basis, the "energy" or what they're "keeping pace" with. "Rationality" is also a method, so has no opinions about "posterity," whosever you may mean. Nothing has "inherent knowledge," and you don't say who is "experiencing" or "recognizing."

That was a great wall of blather. Now, have you got a clear idea you can offer in its place? Say, one with a subject and predicate that correlate?

You want me to correct your limitations of comprehension?

I'm not feeling the need.

I have suggestions on what you may do for yourself to understand, but I'm confident you would likely pull up short due to the the same limitations that now slow you down.

Too, your tone 'tis a tad offensive for respectful topics.

Better luck next time.

[Immanuel Can]

You want me to correct your limitations of comprehension?

No, just the problems in your composition.

Too, your tone 'tis a tad offensive for respectful topics.

Hey, you and I usually agree, and I've supported you when it was warranted. I don't think you have a reasonable complaint on that. So you know I'm certainly not your enemy. Usually, we're on the same side.

That being said, I just can't make heads-or-tails of whatever it was you were trying to say in your last message. The problems there were grammatical.

[henry quirk]

That's OK. I know it's not the usual. Actually every time I see a commercial on TV for Henry Rifles I think of you.

I take that as a compliment...

[Nick_A]

That's OK. I know it's not the usual. Actually every time I see a commercial on TV for Henry Rifles I think of you.

I take that as a compliment...

It is a compliment. Frankly it is cowardice for a man not to defend his home and family with a gun when threatened. You understand this.

I'd like to ask your opinion on the Christmas truce of 1914.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-real ... 20trenches.

Apparently the German and allied troops got tired of killing each other so had a truth in which they sang songs and played football together like best of friends. Then they returned to killing each other. Where is free will here?

[henry quirk]

That's OK. I know it's not the usual. Actually every time I see a commercial on TV for Henry Rifles I think of you.

I take that as a compliment...

It is a compliment. Frankly it is cowardice for a man not to defend his home and family with a gun when threatened. You understand this.

I'd like to ask your opinion on the Christmas truce of 1914.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-real ... 20trenches.

Apparently the German and allied troops got tired of killing each other so had a truth in which they sang songs and played football together like best of friends. Then they returned to killing each other. Where is free will here?

when a man is ordered to shoot the enemy...when shootin' the enemy is his whole reason for bein' in a certain place, at a certain time, along side strangers who've also been ordered to shoot the same enemy, and he chooses not to, how is he not a free will?

[Walker]

You want me to correct your limitations of comprehension?

No, just the problems in your composition.

Too, your tone 'tis a tad offensive for respectful topics.

Hey, you and I usually agree, and I've supported you when it was warranted. I don't think you have a reasonable complaint on that. So you know I'm certainly not your enemy. Usually, we're on the same side.

That being said, I just can't make heads-or-tails of whatever it was you were trying to say in your last message. The problems there were grammatical.

Of course. I see no animosity in what I wrote. None was intended. No complaints.

You're projecting a lot into a factual statement.

Obviously you have to, although you may not know why.

[Nick_A]

That's OK. I know it's not the usual. Actually every time I see a commercial on TV for Henry Rifles I think of you.

I take that as a compliment...

It is a compliment. Frankly it is cowardice for a man not to defend his home and family with a gun when threatened. You understand this.

I'd like to ask your opinion on the Christmas truce of 1914.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-real ... 20trenches.

Apparently the German and allied troops got tired of killing each other so had a truth in which they sang songs and played football together like best of friends. Then they returned to killing each other. Where is free will here?

when a man is ordered to shoot the enemy...when shootin' the enemy is his whole reason for bein' in a certain place, at a certain time, along side strangers who've also been ordered to shoot the same enemy, and he chooses not to, how is he not a free will?

It could be a reaction to the desire not to kill. I understand free will as a conscious ACTION rather than a mechanical REACTION to a desire. A conscious action would be a conscious thought supported by free will. A mechanical reaction doesn't require consciousness but a physical response to conditioned patterns.

Remember how you entered the room and sat at the computer. Was there any conscious self awareness or free will in it or did it just happen as if you were on automatic pilot? This is our normal life. It is a mixed blessing. However Nietzsche for example described it as "wretched contentment" making us unaware of conscious human potential and what free will is capable of.

There’s an old, well known story of a chicken farmer who found an eagle’s egg.
He put it with his chickens and soon the egg hatched.
The young eagle grew up with all the other chickens and whatever they did, the eagle did too. He thought he was a chicken, just like them.
Since the chickens could only fly for a short distance, the eagle also learnt to fly a short distance.
He thought that was what he was supposed to do. So that was all that he thought he could do. As a consequence, that was all he was able to do.
One day the eagle saw a bird flying high above him. He was very impressed. “Who is that?” he asked the hens around him.
“That’s the eagle, the king of the birds,” the hens told him. “He belongs to the sky. We belong to the earth, we are just chickens.”
So the eagle lived and died as a chicken, for that’s what he thought he was.

The fable of the eagle and the chicken describes what I'm getting at. What if our species were conscious and had free will? What would the world be like?

[henry quirk]

Remember how you entered the room and sat at the computer. Was there any conscious self awareness or free will in it or did it just happen as if you were on automatic pilot?

can't speak for you, Nick...mebbe you have great stretches where you do indeed run on auto-pilot...me: I'm always aware of what I'm doin' and why...I'm always choosin', de-liberatin' myself

[Immanuel Can]

That being said, I just can't make heads-or-tails of whatever it was you were trying to say in your last message. The problems there were grammatical.

Of course.

Well, did you have something you were trying to communicate, or not? Why not fix the grammar, then?

[Walker]

That being said, I just can't make heads-or-tails of whatever it was you were trying to say in your last message. The problems there were grammatical.

Of course.

Well, did you have something you were trying to communicate, or not? Why not fix the grammar, then?

You seek advice about a latest philosophical question that has appeared unto awareness. Out of respect for topic and audience, I offer time and energy without malice … accept it as what has become of you, must.

What I wrote stands alone as a third entity.
There is you. There is me. There is the writing.
One, two, three.

I already understand the writing.
You don’t. I can’t understand it for you.

If I rewrite it, what is then written becomes a fourth entity.

Meaning exists only in relationship.
Relationship is always between two, you and something apprehended whether that be person, place, thing, or thought.

The meaning of those words that I wrote
Is between you and the words
Not between you and me
It’s not between one and two
It’s between one and three.

Regarding your confusion over grammar, “medium is the message” can be modified and watered-down to, the style is part of whatever message you find in life.

In the advice of “Seek and ye shall find,” the place to seek is within, not the sky.

Keep in mind as the measure that no one can answer the Big Question for you, so consider seeking answers within to be good practice for spiritual growth.

I suspect you won’t do that, because from my limited observations restricted to this intellectual realm I’ve observed that you know what you know for sure. Anything uncertain or unknown must fit into that. Your salvation is that you know a lot, all of which will turn to dust although if given the Gutenberg treatment, part of that can become an independent, objective third entity to prompt inner seeking.

Which is not to say I won’t answer questions, if I feel the need.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course.

Well, did you have something you were trying to communicate, or not? Why not fix the grammar, then?

You seek advice about a latest philosophical question that has appeared unto awareness....

So "No," then.

Okay.