Does free-will exist?
- Thread starter AgnosticBoy
- Start date
It's important to note that this argument is rooted in the assumption that the natural universe requires an external cause, and that this cause must be supernatural.
By integrating organized matter as a property of The Mind, the naturalistic explanation avoids the need for external or supernatural forces to account for its existence. Instead, it recognizes that the complexity and organization of matter can give rise to the rich and varied experiences we associate with consciousness and The Mind.
- Organized Matter: The naturalistic view acknowledges that the universe consists of organized matter, ranging from subatomic particles to galaxies. This matter is mindfully arranged into intricate systems, including living organisms with cognitive capabilities, which is significant of said mindful Mind experiencing biological arrangements of Matter through the matter itself.
- Emergence of Consciousness: Within this framework, consciousness is seen as an emergent phenomenon that – while appearing to arise from the complex organization and interactions of matter, particularly in the brain – are explained as The Mind which arranged said Biological Matter, engaging with and through the matter – and in this context - is the subjective experience and cognitive processes associated with consciousness.
- Interconnectedness: The naturalistic explanation emphasizes the interconnectedness between The Mind and the physical processes of the brain and body. The Human mind is not separate from or imposed upon the material world but emerges from it as a product of the overall Mind responsible for the organization and functioning of organized Matter.
- Mindful Experience: The naturalistic approach acknowledges that The Mind engages in mindful experiences, where cognition, perception, emotions, and subjective awareness arise from the physical processes occurring within the brains and the sensory systems and translated as thought and actioner the human experience The Mind is involved with . These experiences can be studied and understood through scientific methods, including neurobiology, cognitive psychology, and other relevant disciplines.
I can give a few guesses at what you mean. Obviously, when you compare the definitions between cause and effect, there is a difference. I suppose you're referring to some timeless part of the universe, or something else?
I get this point and it is very reasonable in that we do experience cause and effect as being two separate things. I can understand that when applied to the Universe, which is supposedly the totality of all matter, that something outside or besides matter would have to cause matter. I don't see that as being a logical fallacy but rather the issue with me is thinking that that's the ONLY way. Is it really the only way (esp. in considering all of the other explanations, like Universe being self-caused or always existing in some form)?
William also responded to your post so I'll try to get to that one.
It is an assumption but a sensible one. If matter did not always exist, then it would not be reasonable to say that matter is the cause. Something non-matter would have to create matter. Supernatural is a candidate in my view. But then like you I question if the supernatural is needed. It is definitely a loaded term requiring a lot of other things to be proven. Like if it is the traditional God, then you have to prove some things about its nature, how does He have free-will, how does He experience, why did he need us if he's perfect, etc, etc.
I got ya. It takes into account the naturalistic explanations in regards to 'matter', and all of the variations of things that comes from it, while also not creating some of the assumptions or difficulties that some of the supernatural explanations can bring on.
Your view deviates from the most accepted form of materialism that atheists and scientists tend to accept (theirs being that the mind is nothing more than brain matter) but I can still see it being natural depending on how you define "Mind." The only thing I don't understand is in the last bullet point, like how the Mind engages with mind.
Is this Mind just awareness or consciousness? If so, then I take it that the mental processes like thought and emotion can happen without awareness. But with Mind being involved, that just involves an awareness that we are experiencing these mental functions.
AgnosticBoy: "I can give a few guesses at what you mean. Obviously, when you compare the definitions between cause and effect, there is a difference. I suppose you're referring to some timeless part of the universe, or something else?"
No I was speaking from the perspective of Self. If you identify yourself as being a mind and body, then yes, you are separate from things outside of your body. These external things can control you. If you define self as being part of everything, interconnected, then there is no need for free-will. This is my experience of reality and what other Eastern thinkers have explained. This might help put things in perspective,
"Anyone who has thought deeply about spiritual matters knows that one of the fundamental problems is how to reconcile our day-to-day experience with claims about God or a nondual reality. The first level seems concrete and demonstrable while the second is speculative, to say the least. Among the Indian philosophies, Advaita Vedanta is the only one that speaks of “orders” of reality. There is the absolute nondual reality (paramartha); ..
From the absolute viewpoint of Advaita, there is no duality. There is therefore no “actual” creation: there are no people, no objects, and no action. Consequently, there are also no concepts, including that of free will. We believe we are these bodies and minds, but we are not. They are simply waves, rising and falling on the ocean of consciousness. The problems arise when we identify with them. Although already free, perfect, complete, and unlimited, we then believe ourselves to be suffering individuals trapped in imperfect and mortal frames.
Many modern teachers, especially the neo-Advaitins, attempt to speak only from the absolute standpoint. Thus, they tend to ridicule the notion of free will. Such teachers are, however, confusing Advaita’s levels of reality. Certainly the nondual Self has no free will, because it does not act (as indicated by the Bhagavad Gitaquotation). But at the level of the world, a person is obliged to act, working to feed and clothe the body, at the very minimum.
Accordingly, if we are identified with the body, we will seem to have free will and be subject to the law of karma. From the standpoint of absolute reality, there is only the Self, the ultimate sense of “I.” There is no action because there are not two things; thus the “actor-action-acted upon” triad does not exist. Consequently, the very notion of free will is meaningless. Enlightenment entails the realization that karma relates to the body-mind and not to the real Self."
- Yoga International
The real "freedom" that we seek is not a mental or bodily activity but rather it is freedom from our limited self. I encourage you to look up Liberation, also called "moksha" in Eastern philosophy.
No I was speaking from the perspective of Self. If you identify yourself as being a mind and body, then yes, you are separate from things outside of your body. These external things can control you. If you define self as being part of everything, interconnected, then there is no need for free-will. This is my experience of reality and what other Eastern thinkers have explained. This might help put things in perspective,
"Anyone who has thought deeply about spiritual matters knows that one of the fundamental problems is how to reconcile our day-to-day experience with claims about God or a nondual reality. The first level seems concrete and demonstrable while the second is speculative, to say the least. Among the Indian philosophies, Advaita Vedanta is the only one that speaks of “orders” of reality. There is the absolute nondual reality (paramartha); ..
From the absolute viewpoint of Advaita, there is no duality. There is therefore no “actual” creation: there are no people, no objects, and no action. Consequently, there are also no concepts, including that of free will. We believe we are these bodies and minds, but we are not. They are simply waves, rising and falling on the ocean of consciousness. The problems arise when we identify with them. Although already free, perfect, complete, and unlimited, we then believe ourselves to be suffering individuals trapped in imperfect and mortal frames.
Many modern teachers, especially the neo-Advaitins, attempt to speak only from the absolute standpoint. Thus, they tend to ridicule the notion of free will. Such teachers are, however, confusing Advaita’s levels of reality. Certainly the nondual Self has no free will, because it does not act (as indicated by the Bhagavad Gitaquotation). But at the level of the world, a person is obliged to act, working to feed and clothe the body, at the very minimum.
Accordingly, if we are identified with the body, we will seem to have free will and be subject to the law of karma. From the standpoint of absolute reality, there is only the Self, the ultimate sense of “I.” There is no action because there are not two things; thus the “actor-action-acted upon” triad does not exist. Consequently, the very notion of free will is meaningless. Enlightenment entails the realization that karma relates to the body-mind and not to the real Self."
- Yoga International
The real "freedom" that we seek is not a mental or bodily activity but rather it is freedom from our limited self. I encourage you to look up Liberation, also called "moksha" in Eastern philosophy.
Say for instance, we are able to create an AI that is able to think and act. This is AI is controlled by programming. If the AI was able to change its programming to get itself to act differently, would that be an example of free-will? Or is it just random? I'm guessing it would depend on why the AI changed its programming.
Let me make my last post on self-causation more believable.
Not only is the AI controlled by its programming, but it also knows that it is being controlled by it. And it also knows how to rewrite its coding to reach any outcome that's possible to it.
Not only is the AI controlled by its programming, but it also knows that it is being controlled by it. And it also knows how to rewrite its coding to reach any outcome that's possible to it.
This would be no different than how we sentient humans can change our programing. The will to either accept the programing we have or to change it, is relative to the freedom we have to do so.
I like the Ai example because it is a simple. Not too many factors to deal with in terms of what influences choice... All we have is programming.
