Natalie thanks for the link, it's interesting. I'm only half way through it and have written tons of notes and notes, part way through I noticed (because I'm aware of 'process' and 'content' and the art of logos, pathos and ethos in persuasive communication) he switched his argument from a grounding/setting in process - (neurological) to coming to a conclusion in content - (being able to define morality) means we do not have freedom of will in that which we are given opportunities to experience and respond, and this is an incompatible switch, in my humble opinion, one does not necessarily mean the other.
So far most of what he's outlining in process is the same as I was outlining in the Being Human thread about time about how the slower brain processing in this dimension makes all things in the past, and our thoughts and actions as a response to stimuli, the experience of which is in a past moment and thoughts and actions dependent on where we focus our attention, which 'stimuli' we notice and make sense of and how we then react to that perception of minutiae of stimuli.
But, as ww points out he is assuming there is only the human experience and maybe does not understand that this is a 'modified', slowed down version of who we really are - the essence that breathes life into being human form.
But he assumes too much. For example, being a 'willing' participant in viewing/hearing his talk, when he said pick a city I immediately picked Berlin - for absolutely no reason more than it was the first 'city' that passed the test of being one. I used a very short intuitive selection process for me I'm aware of 'opening up' and then testing against known selection criteria - it would have been less than a second that I 'chose' Berlin - I have no attachment to Berlin, I hadn't eaten German food, I hadn't read anything in the news about it, I've never been there, I have absolutely no preference (personal) I merely picked a city that satisfied the criteria of being a city as he asked us to do. That he interprets this choice as a personal one is wrong. Had he asked us to pick a city of personal significance I would have had two criteria to tick off in the selection process.
Yes his point that I didn't pick a city that I didn't know the name of is valid (duh?) this is why the natural law of 'according to their knowledge' is relevant when considering natural consequences and how things are 'allowed' to happen, which for me speaks to what is wrong with our justice system.
That he then went on to assume that the process of selection was a more unconsciously deductive one than it was for me was erroneous. I understand my processing and in willing / open situations I allow inspiration / creation to 'pause' and will 'select' either consciously/personally, or creatively/impersonally. In this situation I chose creatively/impersonally.
How about you? What process did you go through and how quickly on hearing him say 'pick a city'?
That he also assumes we did not pick our parents, or the opportunities of our experiences, in my experience is also erroneous and limiting.
I have always sensed I don't have it, not sure why or where this sense comes from. That sense is now stronger, not because I think free-will is an illusion, which it is and I do, but because Science has discovered that the thought of the cup of coffee I am consciously intending to brew in a few minutes, was actually preceded by neural activity not conscious to me, activity which I didn't author. The significance of this discovery has blown my mind.
From whence the stimuli processing that resulted in your desire (unmanifest) and intention (rising energy)) into action (energy in form) to make and consume a cup of coffee is a simple processing of co-creation in energy within your body - in biological terms even without the mental application your body interpreted 'lack' and your brain processed desire and solution. It is within the realm of the physical part of 'you'.
This has nothing to do with free will in higher self understanding of moral issues that impact on consciousness. Now, if you started having a debate with yourself over the ethics of the production of the coffee, maybe, but not in responding to a biological stimuli.
And for me this is where he is missing the point.
He keeps saying you cannot know what constitutes your responses to stimuli - I would hold that to be false - in it's highest sense if you recognise the energy of fear and you recognise the energy of love you can - with attention - absolutely follow those flows back to their source and choose without being blindly influenced by one or the other.
He mixes human 'judging' of morality with consciousness and for me justice is truly blind on our planet. But it chooses - our societies choose to be blind in order to make enemy, obstacle or means to an end of people, situations and things, The victim/victor states are one in the light there is no need for judgement or punishment there is only opportunity to experience and the natural consequences of that.
He also keeps saying you do not choose your parents, your genes, your opportunities for experience and yet he says life is lived within the 'natural laws' ... I guess maybe we have different understanding of the natural laws
An interesting musing for me is this notion I have of when time stands still to allow you to do this. In a sense neurologically / biologically I appear to be able to stand outside of time on some level of my consciousness and willingly process 'stuff'. That I was aware of it pre-nde precludes that as a pre-requisite. That these moments being important to the 'all' being shown in my life review in the light holds some stronger 'resonance', and yet its still not totally 'personal'.
I do agree with him that 'free will' is not what people think it is, and in some ways he is going in the right direction. I look forward to finishing watching the video to see where he takes it.
I also would love to discuss with him his notions of responsibility, as different to response ability.
.It also has merit as a discussion if it leads to more conscious application of 'laws' with regard to notions of crime and punishment - I am an absolute fan of 'restorative justice' which is only just beginning to emerge in some of our societies - it truly does stay within understanding of the natural laws, and according to their knowledge, and implemented in love, not fear as most of our justice system is currently.
His stuff about being able to 'sense' someone's intentions is also discussed in the Being Human thread in terms of being aware of what is and isn't your 'business' and the ethical - not moral because that's externally imposed notions, but the resonance of ethical behaviours with this ability.
Did anyone notice the maybe 3/25ths of a second uncomfortableness/slight embarrassment he experienced and a sense of concern for disagreeing with someone whose opinion he cares about who was sitting in the front of the audience and slightly to his left, when he mentioned 'including chants' having an impact on consciousness? I'll get the time code for you to have a look - this is part of the awareness of perception that we can hone, if we are willing. He was most vulnerable at that point. It suggests to me he is 'open' to exploring different ideas.
He'd certainly be someone I'd love to be at a dinner party with