HUMAN EXISTENCE IS A NESTED SYSTEM OF REACTIONS

[popeye1945]

Human existence is a nested system of reactions, and free will is an egocentric idea of mankind that will hold us back from knowing ourselves and the world around us. We are not isolated agents but emergent nodes in a vast interdependent network, biological, cultural, and historical. Each choice we make is less a sovereign act than a downstream effect of prior conditions, genetics, predispositions, early environment, social feedback loops, and epigenetics. The butterfly effect is most disturbing to the desire to believe in free will; it is not poetic, it is architecture. In a system this dense, free will becomes negligible. This thread examines how identity and agency arise not from freedom, but from patterned reactions, and how understanding this can shift our focus from control to context, as context defines.

[Impenitent]

to be or to be a cog in the machine

-Imp

[popeye1945]

to be or to be a cog in the machine

-Imp

Feels like a drive-by shooting ---lol!!

[Age]

Human existence is a nested system of reactions, and free will is an egocentric idea of mankind that will hold us back from knowing ourselves and the world around us.

Are you not aware that 'you' are arguing against 'you', here?

If 'free will' is a so-called 'egocentric idea of mankind', then both 'your claim', here, and, 'that egocentric idea of mankind' are just 'reactions', that is, if your beliefs, here, are to be believed to be absolutely true.

Therefore, the idea of 'free will' 'must exist'. And, also, those who believe 'free will' does exist 'must exist' as well. So, the very reason why you are 'trying' so hard to fight and argue against 'free will', which obviously exists, to some, is because you are only 'reacting', from your own past experiences.

We are not isolated agents but emergent nodes in a vast interdependent network, biological, cultural, and historical. Each choice we make is less a sovereign act than a downstream effect of prior conditions, genetics, predispositions, early environment, and social feedback loops.
The butterfly effect is most disturbing to the desire to believe in free will; it is not poetic, it is architecture. In a system this dense, free will becomes negligible. This thread examines how identity and agency arise not from freedom, but from patterned reactions, and how the understanding of this can shift our focus from control to context, as context defines.

you appear to be completely oblivious to the very Fact that the term, 'free will', applies to your very ability 'to choose', which you obviously do when you react, here.

And, that 'you' just can not yet recognise and see the irrefutable Facts, here, shows and proves that you have no ability at all to choose absolutely any thing, at all, here. Which includes you do not have any choice at all other than to 'try to' fight and argue against all those things that are, actually, what is Truth and Right, in Life.

Which also includes when you recognise and notice that you can not argue against nor counter what is pointed out and shown to be absolutely True, Right, Accurate, or Correct in any of the other threads that you start, and so you have no choice at all but to just start another thread, in the hope that others will not notice that your position and claim was proved absolutely and irrefutably False and Wrong in your other threads.

[Age]

to be or to be a cog in the machine

-Imp

Thus why the words and term, 'cognive distortions', came about, and thus came-to-be.

[popeye1945]

The argument about choice being the mark of free will is a misunderstanding of human reality. There is no human behaviour that is not motivated; thus, the first reaction comes from before the subject individual is even aware of intention. It is argued that this all takes place within the brain. One should not ignore the constant interface of the body to the world at large, the first idea of the mind being the body and its alterations as experiences; this must be occurring for there to be something to change one's mind towards. The world at large owns the body as the body owns the world. This means that the Earth, as a cause, is a constant, and all organisms are reactive; as such, the one thing they cannot do is not react to their environment. There are ways in which the organism reacts to its environment that are involuntary or automated in the brainstem or deeper structures. We are multicellular organisms; as such, we are not individuals but communities of organisms. Our cells and organs have what they consider their identities/their functions in that, like us, they acquire their identities from their outer context. The Earth and the cosmos are our outer context. Cause and reaction are a constant process; the changing of one's mind is just a snapshot of this unending process. The interface/your body as altered through the world as a cause is still operating your behaviours. It cannot be any other way. So, even when you think you've changed your mind through this ongoing process, the earth has changed it for you.

[popeye1945]

to be or to be a cog in the machine

-Imp

Your problem is your belief that you are more significant than a worm.

[Eodnhoj7]

Human existence is a nested system of reactions, and free will is an egocentric idea of mankind that will hold us back from knowing ourselves and the world around us. We are not isolated agents but emergent nodes in a vast interdependent network, biological, cultural, and historical. Each choice we make is less a sovereign act than a downstream effect of prior conditions, genetics, predispositions, early environment, social feedback loops, and epigenetics. The butterfly effect is most disturbing to the desire to believe in free will; it is not poetic, it is architecture. In a system this dense, free will becomes negligible. This thread examines how identity and agency arise not from freedom, but from patterned reactions, and how understanding this can shift our focus from control to context, as context defines.

True, but free will exists in degrees of non-attachment.

[popeye1945]

Human existence is a nested system of reactions, and free will is an egocentric idea of mankind that will hold us back from knowing ourselves and the world around us. We are not isolated agents but emergent nodes in a vast interdependent network, biological, cultural, and historical. Each choice we make is less a sovereign act than a downstream effect of prior conditions, genetics, predispositions, early environment, social feedback loops, and epigenetics. The butterfly effect is most disturbing to the desire to believe in free will; it is not poetic, it is architecture. In a system this dense, free will becomes negligible. This thread examines how identity and agency arise not from freedom, but from patterned reactions, and how understanding this can shift our focus from control to context, as context defines.

True, but free will exists in degrees of non-attachment.

No, none- attachment must be willed. There is one thing an organism cannot do, and that is to NOT react to its environment. Reaction is the means of belonging to the Earth. Cause and reaction are a cyclical reality.

[Eodnhoj7]

Human existence is a nested system of reactions, and free will is an egocentric idea of mankind that will hold us back from knowing ourselves and the world around us. We are not isolated agents but emergent nodes in a vast interdependent network, biological, cultural, and historical. Each choice we make is less a sovereign act than a downstream effect of prior conditions, genetics, predispositions, early environment, social feedback loops, and epigenetics. The butterfly effect is most disturbing to the desire to believe in free will; it is not poetic, it is architecture. In a system this dense, free will becomes negligible. This thread examines how identity and agency arise not from freedom, but from patterned reactions, and how understanding this can shift our focus from control to context, as context defines.

True, but free will exists in degrees of non-attachment.

No, none- attachment must be willed. There is one thing an organism cannot do, and that is to NOT react to its environment. Reaction is the means of belonging to the Earth. Cause and reaction are a cyclical reality.

Not necessarily as there is an attachment to will. The emptiness of a state is a detachment from will.

Dually, from another angle:

A will not bound to attachment us free, one that is bound is not free.

Reaction occurs by degree of interpretation, if no interpretation occurs there is no reaction.

[popeye1945]

True, but free will exists in degrees of non-attachment.

No, none- attachment must be willed. There is one thing an organism cannot do, and that is to NOT react to its environment. Reaction is the means of belonging to the Earth. Cause and reaction are a cyclical reality.

Not necessarily as there is an attachment to will. The emptiness of a state is a detachment from will.

Dually, from another angle:

A will not bound to attachment us free, one that is bound is not free.

Reaction occurs by degree of interpretation, if no interpretation occurs there is no reaction.

It sounds like a subject that is aware that the source of all sorrows is temporality, so they focus on detachment from the temporal and try to escape the sorrows of life. This is a reaction; a reactionary organism cannot NOT react to its environment; it is the means of belonging to that environment. Keep in mind always that there is no such thing as independent existence; all is mutual interdependence and flow/process. There are no degrees of reaction, for life's consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things and its nature is reaction and reaction is equal to its cause.

[Eodnhoj7]

No, none- attachment must be willed. There is one thing an organism cannot do, and that is to NOT react to its environment. Reaction is the means of belonging to the Earth. Cause and reaction are a cyclical reality.

Not necessarily as there is an attachment to will. The emptiness of a state is a detachment from will.

Dually, from another angle:

A will not bound to attachment us free, one that is bound is not free.

Reaction occurs by degree of interpretation, if no interpretation occurs there is no reaction.

It sounds like a subject that is aware that the source of all sorrows is temporality, so they focus on detachment from the temporal and try to escape the sorrows of life. This is a reaction; a reactionary organism cannot NOT react to its environment; it is the means of belonging to that environment. Keep in mind always that there is no such thing as independent existence; all is mutual interdependence and flow/process. There are no degrees of reaction, for life's consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things and its nature is reaction and reaction is equal to its cause.

The source of all joy is time as well.

If one is to look at the whole picture to be detached from time is to let the flow of time occur, the joys, the sorrows, so on and so forth without manipulation.

It's not that reactions do not occur but rather the degree to which they do. Someone is let go of an attachment to fast food is not going to have the reaction of someone who does have an attachment to fast food...assuming both are near a McDonald's.

With each degree of detachment, within the patterns of consciousness, comes less of a degree of reaction and if a reaction does occur it may be by the spontaneity of choice.

Pure determinism does not occur purely because of the spontaneity of experiential existence shows that some realities are acausal relative to a linear framework. Given the ever present potential of things, by means of the space by which they occur, causality is not purely linear.

[popeye1945]

Not necessarily as there is an attachment to will. The emptiness of a state is a detachment from will. Dually, from another angle: A will not bound to attachment us free, one that is bound is not free. Reaction occurs by degree of interpretation, if no interpretation occurs there is no reaction.

It sounds like a subject that is aware that the source of all sorrows is temporality, so they focus on detachment from the temporal and try to escape the sorrows of life. This is a reaction; a reactionary organism cannot NOT react to its environment; it is the means of belonging to that environment. Keep in mind always that there is no such thing as independent existence; all is mutual interdependence and flow/process. There are no degrees of reaction, for life's consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things and its nature is reaction and reaction is equal to its cause.

The source of all joy is time as well. If one is to look at the whole picture to be detached from time is to let the flow of time occur, the joys, the sorrows, so on and so forth without manipulation. It's not that reactions do not occur but rather the degree to which they do. Someone is let go of an attachment to fast food is not going to have the reaction of someone who does have an attachment to fast food...assuming both are near a McDonald's. With each degree of detachment, within the patterns of consciousness, comes less of a degree of reaction and if a reaction does occur it may be by the spontaneity of choice. Pure determinism does not occur purely because of the spontaneity of experiential existence shows that some realities are acausal relative to a linear framework. Given the ever present potential of things, by means of the space by which they occur, causality is not purely linear.

Time is not the source of joy, and it's debatable as to whether time exists. The perception of time is relative to a subject's speed, I believe. I could be wrong, but I suspect so. To be detached from time is to be focused and unaware of time, a restful place to be. I think the rest needs to be worked on for clarity; it doesn't sound reasonable as is.

[Eodnhoj7]

It sounds like a subject that is aware that the source of all sorrows is temporality, so they focus on detachment from the temporal and try to escape the sorrows of life. This is a reaction; a reactionary organism cannot NOT react to its environment; it is the means of belonging to that environment. Keep in mind always that there is no such thing as independent existence; all is mutual interdependence and flow/process. There are no degrees of reaction, for life's consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things and its nature is reaction and reaction is equal to its cause.

The source of all joy is time as well. If one is to look at the whole picture to be detached from time is to let the flow of time occur, the joys, the sorrows, so on and so forth without manipulation. It's not that reactions do not occur but rather the degree to which they do. Someone is let go of an attachment to fast food is not going to have the reaction of someone who does have an attachment to fast food...assuming both are near a McDonald's. With each degree of detachment, within the patterns of consciousness, comes less of a degree of reaction and if a reaction does occur it may be by the spontaneity of choice. Pure determinism does not occur purely because of the spontaneity of experiential existence shows that some realities are acausal relative to a linear framework. Given the ever present potential of things, by means of the space by which they occur, causality is not purely linear.

Time is not the source of joy, and it's debatable as to whether time exists. The perception of time is relative to a subject's speed, I believe. I could be wrong, but I suspect so. To be detached from time is to be focused and unaware of time, a restful place to be. I think the rest needs to be worked on for clarity; it doesn't sound reasonable as is.

Here is food for thought.

Distinctions exist because of change, change exists because of time. The distinctions of joy and sorrow require time.

Thoughts?

[popeye1945]

The source of all joy is time as well. If one is to look at the whole picture to be detached from time is to let the flow of time occur, the joys, the sorrows, so on and so forth without manipulation. It's not that reactions do not occur but rather the degree to which they do. Someone is let go of an attachment to fast food is not going to have the reaction of someone who does have an attachment to fast food...assuming both are near a McDonald's. With each degree of detachment, within the patterns of consciousness, comes less of a degree of reaction and if a reaction does occur it may be by the spontaneity of choice. Pure determinism does not occur purely because of the spontaneity of experiential existence shows that some realities are acausal relative to a linear framework. Given the ever present potential of things, by means of the space by which they occur, causality is not purely linear.

Time is not the source of joy, and it's debatable as to whether time exists. The perception of time is relative to a subject's speed, I believe. I could be wrong, but I suspect so. To be detached from time is to be focused and unaware of time, a restful place to be. I think the rest needs to be worked on for clarity; it doesn't sound reasonable as is.

Here is food for thought.

Distinctions exist because of change, change exists because of time. The distinctions of joy and sorrow require time.

Thoughts?

Again, what are the distinctions you need to compare to have distinctions? These claims you jump into; you need to be able to back up, it's not enough to announce as if they were fact statements.