Free Will

[bahman]

It seems to me that we can't know for sure if we have free will, or to what extent we might have it if we do, so I am going to do something radical, and possibly outrageous. I've decided not to have an opinion on the matter.

Well, if Determinism is true, there’s no “you”...

Why!?

[Fairy]

But human dies and turn into dust!

Yes.

Then human cannot be immortal! So the question is what is in human that is immortal?

Death is simply a temporal appearance of immortality. Same applies to birth, that too is a temporal appearance of immortality.

Immortality is both the appearance of birth and death infinitely for eternity, in this conception.

Remember we cannot verbalise our experience of immortality.

[bahman]

Yes.

Then human cannot be immortal! So the question is what is in human that is immortal?

Death is simply a temporal appearance of immortality. Same applies to birth, that too is a temporal appearance of immortality.

Immortality is both the appearance of birth and death infinitely for eternity, in this conception.

What do you mean by the appearance of immortality?

[Fairy]

Then human cannot be immortal! So the question is what is in human that is immortal?

Death is simply a temporal appearance of immortality. Same applies to birth, that too is a temporal appearance of immortality.

Immortality is both the appearance of birth and death infinitely for eternity, in this conception.

What do you mean by the appearance of immortality?

Birth and death are immortal concepts known. They just differ in appearance that’s all.

[bahman]

Death is simply a temporal appearance of immortality. Same applies to birth, that too is a temporal appearance of immortality.

Immortality is both the appearance of birth and death infinitely for eternity, in this conception.

What do you mean by the appearance of immortality?

Birth and death are immortal concepts known. They just differ in appearance that’s all.

You are talking about appearance. The appearance is subject to change. How something subject to time could be immortal? Something that is subject to time changes and eventually perishes.

[henry quirk]

What difference does God or the soul make to the value of our existence?

For me, it makes all the difference. No God means no universe, no you, no me, no nuthin'. And, of course, without my soul I'd be meat. I'd be a philosophical zombie, bio-automation.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me that we can't know for sure if we have free will, or to what extent we might have it if we do, so I am going to do something radical, and possibly outrageous. I've decided not to have an opinion on the matter.

Well, if Determinism is true, there’s no “you”

Actually, I'm fine with the possibility of there being no me.

Ah, I’d miss the laughs…

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me that we can't know for sure if we have free will, or to what extent we might have it if we do, so I am going to do something radical, and possibly outrageous. I've decided not to have an opinion on the matter.

Well, if Determinism is true, there’s no “you”...

Why!?

Well, because then “Bahman” is not a person, but rather the end product of a causal chain. Bahman doesn’t think…rather, he is a combination of certain neurochemicals and electrical impulses, themselves caused by a long cascade of earlier things, all going back to time immemorial. One can no more talk about there being a “Bahman” to think something, or to make a decision, or to hold an opinion, than you can talk about a rock “deciding” to roll down a mountainside — rocks don’t “decide”: they merely roll because the ground gave way beneath them, which happened because of soil erosion, which happened because of the fire last year that burned the vegetation off the hillside, plus the rain which fell from the sky for no particular reason on that particular occasion…

Just so, Bahman is a “rock.” He’s just the last physical arrangement of a long causal chain. He’s not a person, anymore than the rock is. He didn’t actually “decide” anything.

At least, that’s how physical Determinism has to tell the story.

[henry quirk]

Alright, I'll start.

I say man is a composite being. He is body and soul, co-equal. He is a person.

I say man, by virtue of being ensouled, is a free will. His choices are not necessarily rooted in the past. He is a cause and is not caused.

I say there is a true moral measure, a moral fact, against which man can judge and be judged.

Your turn, if you please.

[henry quirk]

I have a question: Can theism lead prematurely to Alzheimer's?

Ask a theist. I'm a deist.

[Dubious]

I have a question: Can theism lead prematurely to Alzheimer's?

Ask a theist. I'm a deist.

...and something else besides!

[Dubious]

Alright, I'll start.

He is a cause and is not caused.

It's true that man is not caused because there was never any overt intention for him to be caused. And YES, he is cause as defined and limited by the forces which created him and ALL else in the universe from rocks to brains, including the universe itself.

[Harbal]

What difference does God or the soul make to the value of our existence?

For me, it makes all the difference. No God means no universe, no you, no me, no nuthin'. And, of course, without my soul I'd be meat. I'd be a philosophical zombie, bio-automation.

You don't say why there can't be a universe without God, and you don't say why not having a soul makes you just meat. I won't even bother asking what you think a soul actually is.

What does Deism say about the origine of human beings? Were they created as they are now, are they the result of Darwinian evolution, along with all other life on the planet, or did they come into existence some other way? That seems very relevant to our place in the "scheme" of things.

[Fairy]

What do you mean by the appearance of immortality?

Birth and death are immortal concepts known. They just differ in appearance that’s all.

You are talking about appearance. The appearance is subject to change. How something subject to time could be immortal? Something that is subject to time changes and eventually perishes.

Some thing subject to time is conceptual, like birth and death, which imply mortality. But if everything in all actuality is immortal, then mortality is simply an illusion in this conception. Birth and death simply appear, disappear, and reappear, infinitely for eternity.

You mentioned previously on another thread: ( ''I experienced immortality'' )

So a question for you now...when you say ''I experienced immortality'', are you talking about yourself as a human, who is mortal, or something else?

[Fairy]

Alright, I'll start.

I say man is a composite being. He is body and soul, co-equal. He is a person.

I say man, by virtue of being ensouled, is a free will. His choices are not necessarily rooted in the past. He is a cause and is not caused.

I say there is a true moral measure, a moral fact, against which man can judge and be judged.

Your turn, if you please.

Thanks, now, this is much better isn't it.

I agree with you, in the context of there being a very real sense of there existing a 'self-conscious' wo/man/human. But this is conceptual knowledge unique to the mind of every human being, and is simply a story within the dream of separation, within mentation so to speak.

Reality is constantly changing, it is never the same reality from one moment to the next. You can't step in the same river twice, so to speak. Reality is a constantly flowing seamless flux of renewal, always from old to new, and never from new to old.

So then, in regards to the dream of separation, all there is, is (No-thing Being Everything) and what appears as part of that everything is the belief and experience of being a separate self an apparent individual with it's own free will, choice and ability to act. This happening is uniquely human and is called self-consciousness. To most people it is the reality.

Then of course, this sense of self tends to want to seek union, as the sense of separation can cause a sense of anxiety for the human. Maybe why the human becomes a philosopher.
So that's what I mean by the dream of conceptual separation, in this conception. There is an apparent mental construction of concepts that appears to create an apparent division (cause) that in reality is not divided ( not caused)

But the apparent paradox is that although Being appears as the dream seeker of union, as it imagines itself to be separate.
Actual Being is not a state that can be imagined, conceived of, attained or even realised by the seeking of it.
Being requires absolutely nothing. Being is the Nothing and Everything that is already immaculate fulfilment and wholeness.
Nothing needs to be changed or attained, lost or found, for Being to simply Be.
The appearance of separation is simply the expression of Being. The very idea of something needing to approach that which it already is, is futile.

Free will is simply within the dream of artificial separation, it's an illusion. There's simply nothing already being everything, choiceless choices being made, and stateless states being created, uncaused causes, and ultimately, nothing is happening etc, etc.

Your turn.