Philosophy Now Forum

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking a lot recently about the following statement, which is bandied about a lot in so-called New Age circles, namely, that we create our own reality. And I think I've found a proof of this statement which is as rigorous as possible. I don't claim that it's absolute truth, because I don't think that absolute truth is within our capacity at the moment. Perhaps it never will be. But in any case, that's another issue. I simply believe that this proof is a reasonable “best guess”. I'll jump right in.

I set the argument up by making a case for the limitations of thought in capturing material reality. Thoughts, in my opinion, are digital by nature, in that they represent reality through a series of “yes” and “no” assertions. Reality, on the other hand, is analog; it ultimately has no seams other than those which we assign to it.

Let me illustrate this with two examples, one building on the other. The first is rooted in classical Buddhist philosophy, from the Madhyamaka school. Imagine you're in elementary school, and your teacher is teaching you the alphabet for the first time. He/she draws an “A” on the board, points to it, and says that it's an “A”. Now, if you're one of the students, my question is, what did you see on the board before he/she told you it was an “A”? Maybe you had the words “triangle” or “line” in your lexicon, so maybe you saw something similar to a triangle or three lines that crossed each other. In other words, you defined that slice of space (or space-time, if you're up on your physics) as a weird triangle or three lines, depending on what your toolkit of mental labels contained at that point. Because our notions of things are really just that: mental labels. They're taught to us by our parents, or whoever, and then we stick them onto pieces of reality and hold them to be what we call them. And of course, words like “pieces” and “reality” and “stick onto” are also mental labels. There's no thought that isn't a mental label, when you get right down to it.

Now for the second example, to drive the point home. Let's say you're looking at a tree. Now zoom in and look at a branch and where it springs from the tree, the bark of the tree. Here we have two distinct parts of the tree, right? The branch and the bark. Again, I hold that these are digital distinctions for an analog phenomenon. Some of you more sciency types may say that the branch and the bark are distinguishable by their different molecular structures. But I counter with this: where do we draw the line? Is there a clear dividing line between what is considered bark and what is considered branch? Nature itself certainly doesn't provide it. One merges into the other. And while we can make approximations about where that dividing line is, ultimately, we can't really measure it precisely, since on the subatomic level, everything is a question probability. So, again, as Alan Watts would say nature is “wiggly”, and everything we use to measure nature (including our thoughts, our mental categories) is ultimately “yes” or “no”, or digital.

So, how does this fit in with the assertion that we create our own reality? Well, it comes down to the fact that once we get rid of this urge to classify in a digital manner, through a sort of conceptual bootstrapping, we realize that we are the entire universe. Think of it this way: I said that nature is by definition “wiggly”, and I think I've provided ample evidence of this in the previous paragraphs. Again, I don't claim that this is gospel truth, but given the evidence, I think it's our “best guess”. So, if nature (read: the universe, which obviously includes us) is really free of mental categories, if it's seamless, then we are a part of that seamless whole. Of course our deluded thoughts about the nature of reality, the ones I stated above, are also part of that seamless whole; if we observe these thoughts, as we are obviously able to do, and don't attach any meaning to them, then they would just be energy forms. (I'm not claiming that anyone is fully capable of doing this; I think that some delusion may always be present. I'm merely showing that these thoughts can also fit into this view of reality.) That is, they are mere electromagnetic impulses in our brain, more of the seamless, spontaneous play of what we call the universe. Of course, I realize that “electromagnetic impulse” is another mental label. Language, since it's a reflection of conceptual thought, has limitations in terms of what it can describe. However, there is a possibility of “bootstrapping” here, which is what I've been trying to do so far.

In any case, back to my assertion that we are the universe. If we free ourselves, at least through logic, if not through constant practice, from the notion that the universe has any “seams”, any categories, then isn't it logical to arrive at the conclusion that we are, in fact, the universe? We're definitely a “part” of it. We're not separate from it. And if there are no real seams, no real separation, if it's all one, and we're “part” of it, then we're it. As Alan Watts would say, we're “the works”. The illusion of separation is just the result of deluded thoughts that slice and dice reality into digital “parts”.

And if you're still on board so far, then there's only one more thing to do to complete the argument. The original assertion that I was trying to prove was “you create your own reality”. I've striven to prove, so far, that we are the universe. So by simple substitution, substitute “the universe” for “you” in the statement “you create your own reality”. You get “the universe creates its own reality”. I don't think anyone can argue with that statement.

Pretty nifty, huh? And I really think that the applications of this are astounding. I really think it's just a question of people being convinced that they create their own reality, and overcoming the doubts (conscious and unconscious) that keep them from creating the reality that they want.

The only proviso that I would add is that everyone is the universe, and everyone has free will (my intuition), so the only real limitations of this universe-creating capacity is when it impinges on the free will of another “universe-being”.

In any case, I'd love any feedback on this. I'm still driving it into my mind, and defending it or unpacking it further (or being convinced otherwise) would definitely be beneficial.

.


Not sure that I am following you but when I read your post I conclude that we don't create any of the reality that we find ourselves in.

I cannot introduce anything into this multidimensional world that we exist within and I can't even create a thought.


My experience of my consciousness isn't even mine.


I can't change even the slightest thing...





.

Hi Bill, I'm definitely not claiming that we have no agency. I'm trying to show just about the exact opposite: short of imposing on the free will of another person, we have unlimited capabilities. Since we *are* the universe, we can, through intention, create whatever we want, as long as it doesn't impose on the free will of anyone else. It's like having an infinitude of "limbs", that we just need to get control of, and *believe* we have control over, and those limbs will "move" for us. Of course that's all done through thought, which is ultimately a delusion, but there's nothing wrong with using thought to have a good time, as long as you know that it's all just a game on that level. Does that make more sense?

.


You seem honest and well spoken.

I don't see yet what you have presented here but I will follow this thread and look to other members to help us clarify.. or, help you unpack your ideas...

***Three stars right off the rip for using Alan Watts in your original post. Good luck to you.



.

Sorry but this post is old news and full of shit. I will post a longer response in a few minutes giving you a closer look, but for now, my opinion still stands. Anyone reading this don't reply until I post the rest of my opinion. Alan Watts is old news, he was primitive and offered some good truths but I thought of the same truths when I was a child.

I didn't read your post thouroughly, and I apologize if I missed any important points. Please let me know if there's anything I didn't cover. I'm really tired, depressed, and suicidal. And it's all your fault, well not you, but your species, and their failure to stimulate me on any level.

Life is not something we "create" it is discerned. A factory does not create, it simply uses inertia to transform matter into other forms of matter. Such is life. We do not create a lego set, any more than a lego set creates us. We simply observe a self building the lego set. The self is a collection of organized forces. Rest assured, this horrible monstrocity known as "Life" I would have never created on my own. I'm not that cruel, only God Himself could do something that horrible.

It's a case of the vegan egg, and the vegan chicken. Perhaps the self is entangled in Life, and can influence the outcome to what goals the self aligns itself to. But also Life is entangled in the Self and influences the goals the self is aligned to. Congratulations if your self is aligned with your life. Starving kids in africa weren't so lucky.
As far as freewill goes, I think that covers it. Life is inertia. Self is entangled in life and is inertia. There is no free will. The power to create is through inertia or unprovable spontaneous events. Spontaneous events are not choices. A quantum robot making choices are not choices, but actions from inertia or unmeasurable spontaneous events.

Ipso facto, your argument defeats itself.

Hi Trixie and Bill,

Trixie, you mentioned in your second post that you're feeling extremely down. Before engaging in any philosophical talk, I think it's important to say that you should seek help, if you haven't done so already. I know how life can get us really down sometimes, but hopefully you have access to caring family, friends, and maybe even professionals who can help you deal with what you're going through. I'd feel guilty if I engaged you on something as abstract and heady as all this if you're in a really bad headspace right now, so I won't go any further. I'll be happy to pick up where we left off when things are going better. I sincerely wish you all the best. Hang in there!

Bill, thanks for the comment, and I appreciate your following the topic. I hope it becomes more transparent over time. As for Watts, yep, good ol' Alan... My favorite of the twentieth century!

Otiose

otiosedodge wrote:Hi Trixie and Bill,

Trixie, you mentioned in your second post that you're feeling extremely down. Before engaging in any philosophical talk, I think it's important to say that you should seek help, if you haven't done so already. I know how life can get us really down sometimes, but hopefully you have access to caring family, friends, and maybe even professionals who can help you deal with what you're going through. I'd feel guilty if I engaged you on something as abstract and heady as all this if you're in a really bad headspace right now, so I won't go any further. I'll be happy to pick up where we left off when things are going better. I sincerely wish you all the best. Hang in there!

Bill, thanks for the comment, and I appreciate your following the topic. I hope it becomes more transparent over time. As for Watts, yep, good ol' Alan... My favorite of the twentieth century!

Otiose

Just ignore my mental state and discuss my arguments if you can. What you talk about is child's play, friends and family, theyll dump you in a heartbeart. And the "help" you refer to is ran by clowns. Your topicspace is nothing compared to the darkest depths of my own mind...

OK Trixie, I'll give it a shot. Also because my perspective has shifted my original post, and I think that the current state of my thinking may be "therapeutic", maybe for both of us.

Oh, and I'll just add that sometimes it's true that family, friends, and mental health professionals just don't help. But I think that maybe a non-conventional mental health professional can sometimes be useful, such as a transpersonal psychologist or other healers that use holistic methods, methods that treat not only the mind, but also the body and probably most importantly, the soul. I realize that the word "soul" may be contentious for you, but hopefully this post will address that later.

I'll start by addressing your points, and maybe weave in some of my new perspective in the process.

Life is not something we "create" it is discerned. A factory does not create, it simply uses inertia to transform matter into other forms of matter. Such is life. We do not create a lego set, any more than a lego set creates us. We simply observe a self building the lego set. The self is a collection of organized forces. Rest assured, this horrible monstrocity known as "Life" I would have never created on my own. I'm not that cruel, only God Himself could do something that horrible.

Your main argument seems rooted in a deterministic worldview, which seems to be conjectural in itself. In other words, the forces you speak of, which have been somehow set into motion, seem to account for events which take place, with the self merely observing. But how can you be sure the universe is deterministic? The latest research in physics suggests that the universe had no beginning, so instead of coming closer to a consensus that would allow us to account for determinism, like a Big Bang that set certain forces into motion that we could then map and would thus allow us to understand where things were going, we seem to be getting further away from this type of understanding.

As for your point about never creating such an awful universe, I'm going to say that I've done some major backpedaling on this perspective, which I'll explain a little later, so I won't attempt to defend this position.

It's a case of the vegan egg, and the vegan chicken. Perhaps the self is entangled in Life, and can influence the outcome to what goals the self aligns itself to. But also Life is entangled in the Self and influences the goals the self is aligned to. Congratulations if your self is aligned with your life. Starving kids in africa weren't so lucky.
As far as freewill goes, I think that covers it. Life is inertia. Self is entangled in life and is inertia. There is no free will. The power to create is through inertia or unprovable spontaneous events. Spontaneous events are not choices. A quantum robot making choices are not choices, but actions from inertia or unmeasurable spontaneous events.

Ipso facto, your argument defeats itself.

Again, you claim categorically that there is no free will, but I think that's still open to debate. On a scientific and/or philosophical level, we simply don't have the tools to definitively prove this statement. Really, I don't think we have the tools to definitively prove any statement. How can we be absolutely sure that there's not some logical flaw in our thinking, or if there's a momentary failure in our retina when we're observing any phenomenon? Quantum physics has shown with a good degree of certainty that at the subatomic level, we can only speak about phenomena in terms of probabilities, and since subatomic phenomena are the substrate of all other phenomena, we're kind of at a loss, don't you think? Not to mention that we don't know how much smaller things actually get.

So that seems to leave us at an impasse, doesn't it? Well, I think there's another option. And it's incredibly simple. Surrender.

And I don't mean surrender to my argument. I mean, surrender to life. To what is probably the ultimate inability of thought to fully grasp truth.

Let me tell you about things that I've gone through, both with regard to my thinking and my life in general, which may unpack this more. But first, let me say that I've essentially abandoned the argument in my first post, not because I don't think it's possible, but because I just don't think it's that important. I now think it's possible for different reasons. Does thought influence reality through as-of-yet unexplained channels? Yes, according to hard science. Just take a look at parapsychological research on global events that have effects on collective consciousness, and, in turn, the effects of these mass reactions in consciousness on random number generators. That implies that we do create our reality, and it's just a question of to what degree our mental and emotional states do so. But anyway, I'm getting off topic.

For years now, I've been in love with Eastern thought, and more specifically the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness. You've probably heard of it; it's pretty much summed up in the examples I gave in my first post. It really gave me solace at a difficult point in my life, when I was struggling with depression and isolation. The idea that the self is a mere label is very comforting, since, to paraphrase the old Zen adage, when there's no self, there's no problem. Easier said than done, of course, but the fundamental insight is still very comforting.

And hence why I think that at some point, we have to realize that thought is pretty much useless, besides for very practical considerations. We can use it from a philosophical perspective to get to the point where we realize it's pretty much useless. You use the scaffolding to build the house, and when the house is ready, you get rid of the scaffolding.

I've known this for years. But now something else has shifted for me. It's really a surrender of sorts. Despite the fact that I'd found this amazing insight in the doctrine of emptiness, there's always been a part of my mind that quested for more. For example, this post on creating your own reality. And various other attempts to address problems in the external world (financial, psychological).

But what I think I've realized now is that I'm exhausted by thinking. By planning and scheming and calculating. And I'm just not going to worry any more. Whenever a worry comes up, to the best of my ability, I'll just say to myself, "It'll be all right. The force of love will take care of it." Maybe the word "love" is problematic for you. Based on your worldview, I'd say it probably is. But I believe in love. I feel it. I enjoy it. But I'm not going to try to justify things rationally or empirically here. In fact, this post probably doesn't belong in a philosophy forum. But I'll forge on anyway. So, in other words, I'll just surrender, and let my exhausted and battered mind rest, and trust somehow that it's for the best. No rationale, no justification. Just surrender.

And in a way, it fits in with what the wisdom of the East says. Surrender the ego. Let it crack open, and let the vast energy of the universe flow through you. Stop trying. Don't fight the current.

And let me tell you, so far so good. It's an incredible relief. Your brought up starving kids in Africa. I once saw an interview with Eckhart Tolle, a spiritual teacher, who talked about going to India or some place like that, and seeing starving people on the street. And he talked about how he saw happiness in some of their eyes, despite what we would consider their utterly horrendous circumstances. And he claimed it was because he could somehow perceive that they had surrendered internally. I know that's a very woolly example, but I really feel there's something to it.

I think some people arrive at a point in life where they're just sick of themselves, and everything else, and they make a choice. And a fair amount of people in our world choose to end their lives, unfortunately. But some choose to surrender, internally surrender. And I think there can be an incredible sense of relief at that point. My path hasn't been that dramatic, but I feel like it's my path in any case. I'm working a dead-end job because I had psychological problems, which in turn screwed up my resume. I have very few friends, and very little family. Normally I'd say that the future doesn't look bright for me. But you know what? I've pretty much decided to surrender. And that feels good.

Also one more small thing to mention which buoys me. As a result of meditation practice, I've gotten in touch with an intuitive side of me, and that's giving me the green light for this surrender. Oh, and interpretation of dreams.

I get the feeling that you're going to trash this post, but that's OK. I wrote it as much for me as I did for you. Good luck!

otiosedodge

Headline is true, but your arguments in post are absurdly bad.

We'll see the world through compulsions, raped and abused women would say all men are evil and should die.

Some neurotic parents would see the whole world as evil, and shelter their kids in the closet.

Crazy cat lady thinks that she can give good love to all her cats, even tho they suffer in their own poo and usually are very sick, she will have the illusion of they live a good life.

You should read up on some neurology and psychology, you are utterly clueless.

What we is tslkin here is the unmoving thing. And that is ya nonlocal identity or overself. Yas got it. Yas found it.

.



...and by Yas of course you mean Yaser Bakhtiari.





.............................................





.

otiosedodge wrote:OK Trixie, I'll give it a shot. Also because my perspective has shifted my original post, and I think that the current state of my thinking may be "therapeutic", maybe for both of us.

Oh, and I'll just add that sometimes it's true that family, friends, and mental health professionals just don't help. But I think that maybe a non-conventional mental health professional can sometimes be useful, such as a transpersonal psychologist or other healers that use holistic methods, methods that treat not only the mind, but also the body and probably most importantly, the soul. I realize that the word "soul" may be contentious for you, but hopefully this post will address that later.

I'll start by addressing your points, and maybe weave in some of my new perspective in the process.

Life is not something we "create" it is discerned. A factory does not create, it simply uses inertia to transform matter into other forms of matter. Such is life. We do not create a lego set, any more than a lego set creates us. We simply observe a self building the lego set. The self is a collection of organized forces. Rest assured, this horrible monstrocity known as "Life" I would have never created on my own. I'm not that cruel, only God Himself could do something that horrible.

Your main argument seems rooted in a deterministic worldview, which seems to be conjectural in itself. In other words, the forces you speak of, which have been somehow set into motion, seem to account for events which take place, with the self merely observing. But how can you be sure the universe is deterministic? The latest research in physics suggests that the universe had no beginning, so instead of coming closer to a consensus that would allow us to account for determinism, like a Big Bang that set certain forces into motion that we could then map and would thus allow us to understand where things were going, we seem to be getting further away from this type of understanding.

As for your point about never creating such an awful universe, I'm going to say that I've done some major backpedaling on this perspective, which I'll explain a little later, so I won't attempt to defend this position.

It's a case of the vegan egg, and the vegan chicken. Perhaps the self is entangled in Life, and can influence the outcome to what goals the self aligns itself to. But also Life is entangled in the Self and influences the goals the self is aligned to. Congratulations if your self is aligned with your life. Starving kids in africa weren't so lucky.
As far as freewill goes, I think that covers it. Life is inertia. Self is entangled in life and is inertia. There is no free will. The power to create is through inertia or unprovable spontaneous events. Spontaneous events are not choices. A quantum robot making choices are not choices, but actions from inertia or unmeasurable spontaneous events.

Ipso facto, your argument defeats itself.

Again, you claim categorically that there is no free will, but I think that's still open to debate. On a scientific and/or philosophical level, we simply don't have the tools to definitively prove this statement. Really, I don't think we have the tools to definitively prove any statement. How can we be absolutely sure that there's not some logical flaw in our thinking, or if there's a momentary failure in our retina when we're observing any phenomenon? Quantum physics has shown with a good degree of certainty that at the subatomic level, we can only speak about phenomena in terms of probabilities, and since subatomic phenomena are the substrate of all other phenomena, we're kind of at a loss, don't you think? Not to mention that we don't know how much smaller things actually get.

So that seems to leave us at an impasse, doesn't it? Well, I think there's another option. And it's incredibly simple. Surrender.

And I don't mean surrender to my argument. I mean, surrender to life. To what is probably the ultimate inability of thought to fully grasp truth.

Let me tell you about things that I've gone through, both with regard to my thinking and my life in general, which may unpack this more. But first, let me say that I've essentially abandoned the argument in my first post, not because I don't think it's possible, but because I just don't think it's that important. I now think it's possible for different reasons. Does thought influence reality through as-of-yet unexplained channels? Yes, according to hard science. Just take a look at parapsychological research on global events that have effects on collective consciousness, and, in turn, the effects of these mass reactions in consciousness on random number generators. That implies that we do create our reality, and it's just a question of to what degree our mental and emotional states do so. But anyway, I'm getting off topic.

For years now, I've been in love with Eastern thought, and more specifically the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness. You've probably heard of it; it's pretty much summed up in the examples I gave in my first post. It really gave me solace at a difficult point in my life, when I was struggling with depression and isolation. The idea that the self is a mere label is very comforting, since, to paraphrase the old Zen adage, when there's no self, there's no problem. Easier said than done, of course, but the fundamental insight is still very comforting.

And hence why I think that at some point, we have to realize that thought is pretty much useless, besides for very practical considerations. We can use it from a philosophical perspective to get to the point where we realize it's pretty much useless. You use the scaffolding to build the house, and when the house is ready, you get rid of the scaffolding.

I've known this for years. But now something else has shifted for me. It's really a surrender of sorts. Despite the fact that I'd found this amazing insight in the doctrine of emptiness, there's always been a part of my mind that quested for more. For example, this post on creating your own reality. And various other attempts to address problems in the external world (financial, psychological).

But what I think I've realized now is that I'm exhausted by thinking. By planning and scheming and calculating. And I'm just not going to worry any more. Whenever a worry comes up, to the best of my ability, I'll just say to myself, "It'll be all right. The force of love will take care of it." Maybe the word "love" is problematic for you. Based on your worldview, I'd say it probably is. But I believe in love. I feel it. I enjoy it. But I'm not going to try to justify things rationally or empirically here. In fact, this post probably doesn't belong in a philosophy forum. But I'll forge on anyway. So, in other words, I'll just surrender, and let my exhausted and battered mind rest, and trust somehow that it's for the best. No rationale, no justification. Just surrender.

And in a way, it fits in with what the wisdom of the East says. Surrender the ego. Let it crack open, and let the vast energy of the universe flow through you. Stop trying. Don't fight the current.

And let me tell you, so far so good. It's an incredible relief. Your brought up starving kids in Africa. I once saw an interview with Eckhart Tolle, a spiritual teacher, who talked about going to India or some place like that, and seeing starving people on the street. And he talked about how he saw happiness in some of their eyes, despite what we would consider their utterly horrendous circumstances. And he claimed it was because he could somehow perceive that they had surrendered internally. I know that's a very woolly example, but I really feel there's something to it.

I think some people arrive at a point in life where they're just sick of themselves, and everything else, and they make a choice. And a fair amount of people in our world choose to end their lives, unfortunately. But some choose to surrender, internally surrender. And I think there can be an incredible sense of relief at that point. My path hasn't been that dramatic, but I feel like it's my path in any case. I'm working a dead-end job because I had psychological problems, which in turn screwed up my resume. I have very few friends, and very little family. Normally I'd say that the future doesn't look bright for me. But you know what? I've pretty much decided to surrender. And that feels good.

Also one more small thing to mention which buoys me. As a result of meditation practice, I've gotten in touch with an intuitive side of me, and that's giving me the green light for this surrender. Oh, and interpretation of dreams.

I get the feeling that you're going to trash this post, but that's OK. I wrote it as much for me as I did for you. Good luck!

The first half of your post about free will. If the universe has always existed, which is a simple concept the human seems unable to understand, that's doesn't really prove anything. And if the universe spontaneously came into existence? That doesn't prove anything either. It doesn't matter if science can't verify anything, it doesn't matter if we are living in a fake matrix. Free will is concept beyond the realms of even magic. If someone were to levitate or do some kind of magical act, chances are there would be some kind of hidden science behind it, some kind of obscure explanation, where it be spirits, sound waves, or unknown aether.

But free will trumps even that. How can one make a choice, in a deterministic universe? How can someone make a choice in a spontaneous environment, where ideas just pop into existence? How can someone make a choice in a quantum semi-random environment? There's just no possible scenario where there's any kind of choice, it's beyond the realm of magic. And this is why I say the lack of choice is actually an absolute truth. It's just experiencing a choice being made, like watching an AI make "decisions" in a computer game. Even if the AI was random, or the AI was totally fixed, it would not be a genuine choice, the word free will is a magical fantasy which shouldn't even be in the English language. It had purpose in the old days when people didn't know any better and peasants were fighting for their freedom. It helped to parade around "free-will" to promote ethical behaviors.

The second half of your post deals with deep Buddhist philosophies. I've addressed them in another post, called "God is a gay schizophrenic pedophile." I think it would be most beneficial to read before continuing.

HexHammer:

How many people do you know that are absolutely convinced of a viewpoint during virtually all of their waking moments? I ask because I want to counter your examples. All of the people you described besides the cat lady probably oscillate somewhere on a spectrum of thought about the situations you describe; they're not fully convinced of it at all times. Moreover, the abused women think men should die, not that they're dead, so they're not really willing the death of the men into existence. However, I do believe that they're more likely to will more abusers into existence by their thought patterns. As for the crazy cat lady, she's willing what she believes to be her cats' happiness into existence; that is, for her, if lying around in their own poo is happiness, then she's willing that into existence, since her definition of happiness is precisely that. And while I'm at it, the neurotic parents are more an example of direct physical causality instead of thought influencing reality. Parents physically shut their kids in the closet because of their perception that the world is evil; they don't will them into the closet.

I've read deeply into psychology, and became bored with mainstream psychological thought a long time ago. Don't think it's germane here at all. If you want to talk about paranormal investigation, I'm also pretty well versed in that, and I think it's useful here. But since you think I'm clueless, I'm guessing that's not the direction you've taken. As for neurology, I guess you're pushing the argument that every perceptual experience is a creative act within the neural pathways, etc. Yawn. It's still very much based in the Newtonian, billiard-ball worldview, and I think things go a lot deeper than that. Ref: the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism.

Jackles: Thank yas!

Hobbes:

Definitely interesting. Probably the result of psychological conditioning, and a taste of the deeper issues that we've been tackling in this topic.

Trixie:

If free will is so far beyond even magic, then why does it even exist as a concept? If it's so untenable, and there's absolutely no way to conceive of it actually working, then why did it show up in our mindspace? If it's really just an instrument of a purportedly nihilist ruling class to enforce certain norms of behavior in peasants, then how did the idea come into existence? You get my point. I think it's just as easy to conceive of a universe where we have free will as it is to conceive of one where we think there isn't any. And I don't agree that the notion that the universe has no beginning makes no difference here; I think the lack of a Big Bang calls into question the idea of an original causative agent, and without that, how could we hope to map out a deterministic universe?

I don't pretend to be able to explain the mechanism of free will. As I said, I'm not sure it exists. But there's another thing I don't toss away out of hand: the feeling that I'm making a choice when I act. You can say that the emotion is a heterophenomenon, just foam on the dumb wave of energy that moves regardless of what you so, but I don't think that emotions are always out of proportion to the reality of a situation. They can be useful markers.

I'm not asking you to believe entirely in free will. I'm just trying to get you to admit that you can't absolutely discount anything, just like you can't absolutely rely on anything. At least not on this dimension of existence.

As for the post you referred to me to: Why? Simple. Because it's fun!