Free will is just another silly religious belief

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby epiphany55 » Fri Jan 01, 2016 5:33 am

Think your next thought.

Now think your next thought.

These thoughts are just arisings. Their creation recedes into an unconscious darkness over which you have no control. Yet we humans walk around as if we are the proud authors of our wisdom, courage, righteousness, intelligence... all inescapable products of thought.

At some point in our evolution, we developed the ability to be conscious of thought. The reflection of thought through a subjective lense of experience. That consciousness is the dumping ground for every thought our brains deliver. Each thought is a mere projection on the screen of mind.

But consciousness is always after the thought, the container and assimilator of thought. It is only an illusion that the thought was somehow created by a singular, wilful entity called "me".

Our brains all agree that there are unconscious forces that drive our bodies from one moment to the next. But why do humans find it so hard to admit that thought is any exception?

What I choose has already been chosen by the time it is delivered into consciousness. What I feel is the product of chemical reactions in the brain.

There is will, as in determination, but only in the form of the domino effect of nature, of which I am merely conscious in any given moment.
Thought is the object, not the essence, of consciousness.
epiphany55
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Jan 01, 2016 7:28 am

I have no choice but to disagree. :wink:

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby Onceler » Fri Jan 01, 2016 5:29 pm

I believe both of you are right.
Be present, be pleasant.
User avatar
Onceler
 
Posts: 2204
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:35 am
Location: My house

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:03 pm

Consider the matter from two perspectives. Are we observers? Or are we explorers?

As strictly an observer, it could seem that there is no free will. In this idea we don't really exist as everything is just an unfoldment of a natural progression of unconscious processes. The only option is to watch life go by or unfold or whatever. But who is doing the watching? Who is this we? How did it begin, and to what end?

As a curious explorer, there is the opportunity to choose between possibilities within that unfoldment. Exploring is inclusive of observing. The who is a conscious individualized self that began with a desire to explore experiential possibilities for the purpose of conscious expansion and evolution. Within those possibilities of our greater conscious being is included the limited perspective of the human life. This life experience is available for temporary adventures and unique explorations into the perception and perspective of human individuality.

As to the idea of 'no self' - that we can consider self at all - or for that matter consider any of more than one possibility, demonstrates a an ability to choose between those possibilities. It's all about experience.

Of course, one such possibility is living through the limited belief of no self and no free will. That brings a certain type of experience that is just as valid an experience as any other.

I would suggest that there is no such thing as an imagined self. There may well be a mistakened perception of self (ie: I am the things I 'think' I am), but the consideration of self at all is a demonstration of the reality of self as consideration is a unique function of self. Pure observation does not consider, it merely observes.

All that said, I would agree that most all of us have lived portions, if not all, of our lives through an autonomous mental belief structure. Thoughts arise from the conditioning present with little or no consideration of their merit. This certainly gives credence to the additional belief that that there is no self, and no free will. Such belief however, is limited by the limitations of its own structure. The larger more inclusive picture, the recognition that we are not what we think we are, is a quality of awakening that restores a measure of freedom and reveals a clearer picture of the self we truly are.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby smiileyjen101 » Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:38 am

I have no choice but to disagree. :wink:

WW

:lol:

Think your next thought.

Now think your next thought.

These thoughts are just arisings.

I had no thoughts, I was reading the words. :wink:
Thoughts are a response to > reading (for me) is attention on/in <

The thing is you can learn to allow attention without responding / reacting in thought - instead being one with, experiencing sensually without determination... just 'is'.

Yet we humans walk around as if we are the proud authors of our wisdom, courage, righteousness, intelligence... all inescapable products of thought.

Not all humans, some have learned the folly of it. Others recognise that we 'are the hole in the flute through which the Christ (Creation) breath flows'... and are listening to the music.

What I choose has already been chosen by the time it is delivered into consciousness. What I feel is the product of chemical reactions in the brain.

Not necessarily, what you choose is one of many options within your awareness, capacity &/or willingness & by those choices you will 'generate' the most suitable chemicals to allow your brain to process your choice into action.

You can test this yourself - 'watch' the flow, see what arises as your 'normal' response, and choose to respond in the opposite - there ain't no one or no thing that's going to stop you.

A very simple example of this is in Anthony Robbins' work with 'depressed' people who have to believe in the one story line of their thoughts. He watches them get out of their cars and look over his lovely garden, appraise his house where they are going to have a session with him, greet him cordially and competently - no signs of depression there. Then when he takes them into his office and they sit down they 'take on' the demeanour that they are interpreting as 'depressed', rehashing old thoughts with hunched shoulders, drooping eyes and head, limp physique and quiet voice. When he 'interrupts' them with, say a loud - 'Hey Wait!!! we haven't started yet!' they jump to attention, shocked out of their 'state'. He will then tell them to sit up straight, hold their head up high, open their eyes wide, speak firmly and loudly and now tell me you're depressed. If they slump & take on the physical demeanour he will interrupt their state again.

They cannot do it - it cannot be done because 'depressed' cannot respond like that. If you say to yourself I am depressed while you are in the sort of physical demeanour that he demands it just falls flat, and eventually funny.

They have to choose to let go of one or the other because the inconsistency is absolutely incompatible.

We do this all the time, without awareness of it. We choose responses, we choose states that then feed into thoughts & responses/reactions - yes employing thoughts - but not because we have no control over them, but because we believe they are the only possible ones to have.

So one can learn a) to not automatically 'assign' our interpretation to stimuli; b) to allow 'is' to be and to be a part of that, and c) to choose consciously our responses to stimuli.

I think that's what ET meant when he said that no, people who assume they have free will don't have any, but those who become aware of that then do have it. (or words to that effect).
ET: “Most people live in the delusion that they make decisions out of free will. In reality their actions are completely determined by their past. How you think, what you want and what you consider important are all determined by your upbringing, your culture, your religion – in short, by your concepts. As long as you still think you are your mind, you have no free will. Spiritually you are unconscious. You may think you know what you want, but you don’t. It is only the conditioning of your mind that says: “This is what you need to have”. That’s not a choice, it’s mechanical. Some people escape from this.

Then it is suddenly as if there is more consciousness, which means that for the first time they truly experience free will. Only then can you take responsibility.


Eckhart teaches us that choice comes with awareness and freedom arises from choosing not to be taken over by thoughts. https://www.eckharttollenow.com/new-hom ... ode=0kq6tf
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby the key master » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:04 am

epiphany55 wrote:Think your next thought.

Now think your next thought.

These thoughts are just arisings. Their creation recedes into an unconscious darkness over which you have no control. Yet we humans walk around as if we are the proud authors of our wisdom, courage, righteousness, intelligence... all inescapable products of thought.


Are you saying that after you think a thought it is immediately placed into the unconscious? That would be quite an expansive definition of unconscious. Maybe if you put in in Abraham Hicks terms WW will rez. How about every thought ever thunk exists in vibrational escrow?

At some point in our evolution, we developed the ability to be conscious of thought. The reflection of thought through a subjective lense of experience. That consciousness is the dumping ground for every thought our brains deliver. Each thought is a mere projection on the screen of mind.



If consciousness isn't in time or space, how does your brain deliver thoughts to it?

But consciousness is always after the thought, the container and assimilator of thought. It is only an illusion that the thought was somehow created by a singular, wilful entity called "me".


I concur that the subconscious plays a role in what you might think of as 'pre-thought', and that by the time thoughts reach awareness there is a logical sequence between your conditioning and the conditions around you which lead to that thought arising, and that most folks are completely unconscious of this process in large part do to the implications to the illusory me that most folks are so invested in. But I wouldn't say consciousness is always after the thought. Your ability to recall your thinking is always after you think something, obviously.

Our brains all agree that there are unconscious forces that drive our bodies from one moment to the next. But why do humans find it so hard to admit that thought is any exception?

What I choose has already been chosen by the time it is delivered into consciousness.


I'm not vibing with this notion of things being delivered into consciousness. Consciousness doesn't need your brain to deliver it a pizza, because consciousness isn't in your brain your brain is in consciousness.

What I feel is the product of chemical reactions in the brain.


What you feel is an effect of consciousness. Without consciousness you wouldn't feel anything.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby the key master » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:16 am

Webwanderer wrote:Consider the matter from two perspectives. Are we observers? Or are we explorers?

As strictly an observer, it could seem that there is no free will. In this idea we don't really exist as everything is just an unfoldment of a natural progression of unconscious processes. The only option is to watch life go by or unfold or whatever. But who is doing the watching? Who is this we? How did it begin, and to what end?

As a curious explorer, there is the opportunity to choose between possibilities within that unfoldment. Exploring is inclusive of observing.


I would say observing includes observing exploring. This doesn't make you an observer and it doesn't make you Christopher Columbus either. :mrgreen:

The who is a conscious individualized self that began with a desire to explore experiential possibilities for the purpose of conscious expansion and evolution. Within those possibilities of our greater conscious being is included the limited perspective of the human life. This life experience is available for temporary adventures and unique explorations into the perception and perspective of human individuality.

As to the idea of 'no self' - that we can consider self at all - or for that matter consider any of more than one possibility, demonstrates a an ability to choose between those possibilities. It's all about experience.



Of course you can talk about things in different contexts, like seeing through the experience of separation. That seeing through, obviously, cannot happen from within the boundaries of the experience. What's seen through are the boundaries. Seeing through boundaries doesn't leave you with an inability to order pizza when you're hungry or prevent you from talking about how hungry the person thingy gets as if you're actually a person. It's a matter of context, not a matter of disagreement.

Of course, one such possibility is living through the limited belief of no self and no free will. That brings a certain type of experience that is just as valid an experience as any other.



Living through limited beliefs is an experience, I'm not sure why you would call it valid. IF no belief is ultimately true, then belief in no self is BS, which means your experience and perception is already implicitly distorted by the unconscious and is by definition not as valid as living through clarity.

I would suggest that there is no such thing as an imagined self. There may well be a mistakened perception of self (ie: I am the things I 'think' I am), but the consideration of self at all is a demonstration of the reality of self as consideration is a unique function of self. Pure observation does not consider, it merely observes.

All that said, I would agree that most all of us have lived portions, if not all, of our lives through an autonomous mental belief structure. Thoughts arise from the conditioning present with little or no consideration of their merit. This certainly gives credence to the additional belief that that there is no self, and no free will. Such belief however, is limited by the limitations of its own structure. The larger more inclusive picture, the recognition that we are not what we think we are, is a quality of awakening that restores a measure of freedom and reveals a clearer picture of the self we truly are.

WW


Ok so you recant your previous statement.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:57 am

Ok so you recant your previous statement.


Key, of course you can perceive my post in any way you choose regardless of my intent... unless epiphany is right and you don't really exist and thoughts are just arising from no one, responding to no one. Odd thing this no self/no choice phenomena.

Living through limited beliefs is an experience, I'm not sure why you would call it valid.

Because all experience is valid. Consider context before you disagree.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby the key master » Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:07 am

WW said,
Key, of course you can perceive my post in any way you choose regardless of my intent... unless epiphany is right and you don't really exist and thoughts are just arising from no one, responding to no one. Odd thing this no self/no choice phenomena.


I don't see epiphany's post as coming from a place of clarity, if that's what you're asking. I think he makes some valid points on the free will notion, but he seems to be experiencing the belief swap phenomena common in the nihilistic approach to non duality. The belief that you don't believe anything.

Because all experience is valid. Consider context before you disagree.


If you look back at what you wrote, you'll see your exact words were operating through such and such belief structure is as valid an experience as any other. I don't see how operating through distortion is as valid as operating through clarity, which is to say I don't see all posts on this forum as equally valid. They are obviously attempts, and I'm assuming the best attempts, to convey what people are experiencing through language. The expressions (and by implication experiences) are often terribly distorted and morphed by lack of reason and faulty logic. How's that for context consideration? :twisted:

(not sure where you get the idea I wasn't considering context, I'm the one who opened the discussion on context)
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:04 am

the key master wrote:How's that for context consideration?

Needs work. But then all consideration is valid... within a broad enough context. :wink:

As to experience, to say one experience is valid and another is not is to say one is right and the other wrong. Again context matters. If you consider from a context where there is right and wrong, then some things are valid and others not. If one considers from a context of all experience is valuable, then all experience is valid.

What then, was the context in which I wrote my post?

You wrote in another thread the importance in perceiving context accurately. "Context is an important thing to understand..."

Are you walking the walk, or simply pointing.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:27 am

the key master wrote:If you look back at what you wrote, you'll see your exact words were operating through such and such belief structure is as valid an experience as any other. I don't see how operating through distortion is as valid as operating through clarity,...

Because operating through distortion is a valid experience of distortion. It has value from a broader perspective.

...which is to say I don't see all posts on this forum as equally valid.

This is one example of where your consideration of context needs work. You wrote from a context of posts being better or worse, or possibly ones' perception being right or wrong as a measure of validity, while I was commenting on all experience being valid as valuable means of insight without regard to some believed standard of accuracy. If you want to discuss accuracy as a measure of value and validity from a strictly human context, we can do that as well - but then I guess we already are.

Consider this: The context in which you considered my post is clearly (to me) invalid. Your experience of misunderstanding my context however, is genuinely valid. One is wrong or inaccurate, the other is useful grist for the mill toward the evolution in consciousness and being - certainly from a greater perspective, and possibly from a human perspective if it can be seen clearly in that human perspective.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby the key master » Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:45 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
the key master wrote:How's that for context consideration?

Needs work. But then all consideration is valid... within a broad enough context. :wink:

As to experience, to say one experience is valid and another is not is to say one is right and the other wrong. Again context matters. If you consider from a context where there is right and wrong, then some things are valid and others not. If one considers from a context of all experience is valuable, then all experience is valid.

What then, was the context in which I wrote my post?

You wrote in another thread the importance in perceiving context accurately. "Context is an important thing to understand..."

Are you walking the walk, or simply pointing.

WW


You're putting words in my mouth and distorting what I said. I apologize for not being more clear, in that i was using the word valid in the same context you were in your first post. If I was unclear about anything, it was precisely that. I was feeling a bit lazy and didn't feel like directly quoting you, which was a mistake on my part because then you imagined you said something you didn't and were using a context you weren't. But we're in the forum posting business here and misunderstandings happen.

Anyway, in the context of all experience being valuable, sure it's all valid, but you said an experience of living through distortion is as valid as any other, and my only point was that experience is subjective. As such, relaying an expression of what you're experience is like of being objectively identified in an attempt to point to the subjective nature of experience is a completely invalid attempt at pointing someone to clarity because clarity is not what is being experienced. Is the experience of distortion an experience? Yea sure. To call it valid is to layer nonsense onto obviousness.

As far as walking the walk, I'm actually farting in bed at the moment. But yea I walk it, and my pointing speaks for itself.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby the key master » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:00 pm

WW said,
Because operating through distortion is a valid experience of distortion. It has value from a broader perspective.


This is what I mean by nonsense. An experience of distortion is distorted, and sure, it's validly distorted. Why even to say it? If someone is pointing you beyond your distortion, isn't the experience of clarity being pointed to more valid?

...which is to say I don't see all posts on this forum as equally valid.


This is one example of where your consideration of context needs work. You wrote from a context of posts being better or worse, or possibly ones' perception being right or wrong as a measure of validity, while I was commenting on all experience being valid as valuable means of insight without regard to some believed standard of accuracy. If you want to discuss accuracy as a measure of value and validity from a strictly human context, we can do that as well - but then I guess we already are.

Consider this: The context in which you considered my post is clearly (to me) invalid. Your experience of misunderstanding my context however, is genuinely valid. One is wrong or inaccurate, the other is useful grist for the mill toward the evolution in consciousness and being - certainly from a greater perspective, and possibly from a human perspective if it can be seen clearly in that human perspective.

WW


I'm saying that pointing to clarity from a place of distortion isn't as valid as pointing to clarity from a place of clarity. I understand you are saying all experience is experience and because you can grow from experience even the experience of distortion is a valid experience, and that's true. I was operating under the assumption that people were sharing their experiences here in an attempt to point others to clarity and not to their own distortion, but that's basically inevitable in the spiritual growth process so I'm not surprised we entered a side street on this thread. I sometimes notice openness and genuine curiosity in what's being pointed to. With you I tend to notice rigidity and inability to internalize what's being laid out for processing, not to mention an unwillingness to take personal responsibility for use of flawed logic coupled to the projection of that tendency onto me and others that don't agree with you.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby Webwanderer » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:47 pm

the key master wrote:You're putting words in my mouth and distorting what I said. I apologize for not being more clear, in that i was using the word valid in the same context you were in your first post.

Apparently not.

You keep arguing for a context of your own making and assigning it to me. It's clear that you do not/will not see what I'm saying. That is not a new phenomena in our discussions. It's certainly okay, but further debate is pointless.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Free will is just another silly religious belief

Postby SandyJoy » Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:08 pm

Hey you lovely bad boys and charming love birds. Reading all this and had to add ( I guess I could claim I had no choice, but then again, I could just walk away if I wanted to, but I don't want to, choiceness apparently ) I was compelled to say that, for me, I've come to this place where the living is always both at the same time, while also living here in this sweet world of mine from this third all inclusive view that can see its both and lives them both while at the very same time is yet not caught up in either side. It's freedom and unleashed joy, of the heart - although the intellect does have its precious place here the soup, it's not the entire cosmic soup. And here in the third place, it's a bit like a living symphony, everything is it and while there is Something profoundly deep and innate holding it all, stringing the song into melody and lyrics and it moves me with the feeling of passion and delight the total music evokes. Then we just want to dance to the rocking rhythm of the whole sound we hear, feel, are moved by. It's always here and not going anywhere, no matter what choices we make. God, I just love it all. Thanks boys, for the morning dance with you. I love you -- in my own sassy, adorable way :D
You are not finished, until you play in that meadow and live there. You can, you know. But only you can take yourself there.
User avatar
SandyJoy
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:42 am

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests