Free will and Sudden events..

[Dan Rowden]

I have alwayes invoked my own anaology, in cases of "free will" arguments, of what we universally refer to as "sudden events". I'm sure I don't have to give an example. Free will is like this - an apparent freedom from known causes based on an inevitable ignorance of the totality of causes of any given thing/thought.

If the causes of any such phenomenon were known in its complete extent "freedom" would be a meaningless term.


Dan Rowden

[Sapius]

Dan wrote:

If the causes of any such phenomenon were known in its complete extent "freedom" would be a meaningless term.

Very true, and who or what in Reality could actually know the complete extent? Reality/Totality for one cannot think, and no-thing could actually achieve that, because the causes of a single phenomenon does not simply extend only "back" in a leaner form, tracking of which would itself be one impossible task, but it extends in every-which direction! Cause and effect is infinitely complex enough to give us, although not ultimately, a minimal “freedom” of thought, and what to make of our perceptual experiences, otherwise, wouldn’t ‘thinking’ be a meaningless term? Hence when asked if one was thinking, he would say, no, I’m cause and effecting! Come to think how logical would that be.

Our nature provided capability of logical internal verbal thinking provides us with such "freedom", so to speak. To “break free” in a sense and realize the reality of cause and effect itself, otherwise if we were purely just ‘cause and effect’ how would we realize it? Can ‘cause and effect’ think? Thinking is the property of a naturally created mind that makes use of caused information in a logical manner, in which, one is thoughtfully able to accept or reject a possible outcome, but the result is still bound by cause and effect. No doubt in that.

[Kevin Solway]

Dan wrote:

If the causes of any such phenomenon were known in its complete extent "freedom" would be a meaningless term.

Very true, and who or what in Reality could actually know the complete extent?

We can always know the complete extent, since a thing is always caused by that thing that is other than itself. That is the complete extent.

[Sapius]

Kevin wrote:

We can always know the complete extent, since a thing is always caused by that thing that is other than itself. That is the complete extent.

Well, that is also true when seen from a core POV, but it does not make contextual sense here.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin wrote:

We can always know the complete extent, since a thing is always caused by that thing that is other than itself. That is the complete extent.

Well, that is also true when seen from a core POV, but it does not make contextual sense here.

I agree that it can be useful to speak in terms of "free will", even though ultimately there is none.

When people met you in the street and asked "What have you been up to?, and you always replied "Cause and effecting", they would probably get bored of asking you. :-)

[DHodges]

I have alwayes invoked my own anaology, in cases of "free will" arguments, of what we universally refer to as "sudden events".

That's an interesting idea - it sounds like what's known in mathematical circles as catastrophe theory.

Exactly when an avalanche occurs, and how big it will be, may not be predictible. But that doesn't mean there is anything like "free will" involved.


http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSe ... 0641534582

[Sapius]

Kevin wrote:

I agree that it can be useful to speak in terms of "free will", even though ultimately there is none.

Of course, ultimately, there is none, but IMO, a core property of a particular thing need not necessarily violate a core principle that it works on. In other words, the core principle does not take away the processing power of a mind that works by the same core principle. The difference with a thing like a mind is its thinking power, reasoning, imagining, creating a conceptual world, a world that has meanings, whereas meanings hold no meaning to any other thing or Totality. That means C&E is actually causing thinking in a thing.

C&E would be nothing without things, and although we could philosophically prove their inherency, things are surely not nothing whatsoever. The core principle causes things, and caused things have their own caused properties, and these caused properties are causes themselves that produce further causes, but logic and reasoning, as a caused property of a caused thing, can effectively, accept or reject a concept through logic and the use of memory, and memories are nothing more than caused experiences stored in the background and used by logic whenever necessary. That means, a brain stores caused conceptual or perceptual experiences and logic/reasoning is the tool that makes use of it, thereby comparing, evaluating, etc, etc, creating a conceptual world, which put together is nothing but internally created “free will”, although bound by the core principle of C&E.

In short, logic and reasoning is "free will".

Does that make sense?

[Jay Ray]

Free will is like this - an apparent freedom from known causes based on an inevitable ignorance of the totality of causes of any given thing/thought.

If the causes of any such phenomenon were known in its complete extent "freedom" would be a meaningless term.

Here it seems that you don't want to make a big difference between "free will" and "freedom" - so let's discuss about freedom in general.

Would you call someone "free", who can choose only between Scylla and Charybdis, a) if there are no visible causes b) if there would be really no causes ?

Or would cou call Buridan's starving donkey "free" ? Isn't ha a prisoner of "causelessness" ?!

[Leyla Shen]

KS: We can always know the complete extent, since a thing is always caused by that thing that is other than itself. That is the complete extent.

See, I didn't read what Dan said that way.

If you knew the entire causal chain of a particular "sudden event," what would there be to be free from?

DR: Free will is like this - an apparent freedom from known causes based on an inevitable ignorance of the totality of causes of any given thing/thought.

[sevens]

If you knew the entire chain of a particular event, you'd be free from 'delusion'.

A meaningless 'delusion'.

Riding the flow of causality, involves Knowing several Truths. These Truths negate the need to know every thing. I believe this is what Kevin is saying. It's an I, viewing an I.

We're each a computer, viewing a limited Uni-verse -- Our Uni-verse. And, we're also connected to one-another through a vast Network. We are One-another.

In this sense, causality is your Mind - attuned to The Mind.

The ego's need to know every thing (if one should ever want to), is replaced - vaporized, evaporated! - by a Love for new Truth. Truth that the Uni-verse supplies daily -- through the Self. The clinging ego must itself be vaporized after a certain level of Self-Realization is acheived. Facts become Truth - Truth becomes.

[a somewhat shameful wind blows, but only Causality is felt]

[Leyla Shen]

Riding the flow of causality, involves Knowing several Truths.

Surf's up, baby.

[Matt Gregory]

Riding the flow of causality, involves Knowing several Truths. These Truths negate the need to know every thing. I believe this is what Kevin is saying. It's an I, viewing an I.

Since knowing the complete extent of an event involves knowing all of its causes, and a cause is an arbitrary conceptual division we make of Reality, then we could know the extent by dividing Reality in two, with one part being the event and the other part being the rest of Reality, like Kevin said.

We could also know the complete extent by dividing Reality into three parts (the event and two more parts of Reality) as long as we know all three parts. Same with four, five, six, etc.

But it quickly gets to the point where we are not capable of knowing all the parts just because there are so many, so the only way we can possibly know the complete extent is by limiting the divisions we make of Reality.

I don't think dividing Reality into a thousand parts is inherently more correct than dividing it into two parts. It might be a more precise way of doing it, but it certainly isn't any more accurate.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, Matt, I reckon that rather neatly draws the line between science and philosophy.

Course, if a cause is an arbitrary conceptual division we make of Reality, having so divided the thing, we certainly have gained a freedom from the known cause of a particular brand of delusion, have we not?

In what way are these two things true at the same time:

1. Everything is caused.
2. Causes are arbitrary, conceptual divisions of Reality.

[Matt Gregory]

Well, Matt, I reckon that rather neatly draws the line between science and philosophy.

Course, if a cause is an arbitrary conceptual division we make of Reality, having so divided the thing, we certainly have gained a freedom from the known cause of a particular brand of delusion, have we not?

I may need sleep, but I'm not sure what particular brand of delusion you're talking about.

We can't really free ourselves from any cause, but we can change the effect it has by introducing causes of our own, so we gain freedom from it in the sense of getting rid of the undesirable effect.

Say an alcoholic drinks whenever he goes into a bar, so he decides to avoid bars. He hasn't gained freedom from the cause because the bar is still there. His behavior is still being determined by the bar because now he can no longer go there.

In what way are these two things true at the same time:

1. Everything is caused.
2. Causes are arbitrary, conceptual divisions of Reality.

Everything is caused but everything is a cause, too.

[Leyla Shen]

I may need sleep, but I'm not sure what particular brand of delusion you're talking about.

Nah. “Brand of delusion” is probably more about my laziness in right words, here. I know you’ll forgive me if I address it later some time (as I’m certain I will); we have enough to continue with.

We can't really free ourselves from any cause, but we can change the effect it has by introducing causes of our own, so we gain freedom from it in the sense of getting rid of the undesirable effect.

Say an alcoholic drinks whenever he goes into a bar, so he decides to avoid bars. He hasn't gained freedom from the cause because the bar is still there. His behavior is still being determined by the bar because now he can no longer go there.

I think we can work with this. My questioning continues as follows:

From your example here, one assumes that the cause is “the bar is there.” So, what we have here is a situation where -- according to your previous statements -- the alcoholic has made an arbitrary, conceptual division of Reality (“the bar is there” being the cause of his behaviour) in an effort to avoid the undesirable effect of alcoholism. But, in fact, he has done nothing more than continue to be the effect of “the bar is there” necessarily.

If his alcoholism is caused, and -- at the same time -- causes are arbitrary, conceptual divisions of Reality, surely he continues to be the undesirable effect by his own ignorance of causes.

Otherwise, I don’t think he would even be able to avoid the bar, would he?

[Matt Gregory]

From your example here, one assumes that the cause is “the bar is there.”

It's one of the causes.

So, what we have here is a situation where -- according to your previous statements -- the alcoholic has made an arbitrary, conceptual division of Reality (“the bar is there” being the cause of his behaviour) in an effort to avoid the undesirable effect of alcoholism. But, in fact, he has done nothing more than continue to be the effect of “the bar is there” necessarily.

Yeah, he's an effect of the bar no matter what, so it's not really a question of stopping or continuing. He has no choice but to be caused by the bar.

[whocares]

So, the bar causes one to drink? Or is one of the causes?

How about emotional shit one cannot get over or come to terms with?

That is the cause of alcoholism. A bar would mean nothing if one came to conquer emotional shit.

Sorry, I know you people don't believe in emotions, or at least want to negate them. Sorry, my friends, they exist, no matter how rational, masculine (cough cough) you may want to become.

[Leyla Shen]

Butttt, Matt! :)

According to your theory, he’s an effect of the bar because he has made an arbitrary, conceptual division of reality -- not because the actuality is that the bar (nor any other or numerous other cause/s he may so arbitrarily assign) is an actual cause.

If cause/s are nothing more than arbitrary, conceptual divisions of reality, then “everything is caused” is also an arbitrary, conceptual division of reality, isn't it?

Something which is arbitrary is, by definition, not absolute.

So, that leaves us with what?

[DHodges]

How about emotional shit one cannot get over or come to terms with?

That is the cause of alcoholism. A bar would mean nothing if one came to conquer emotional shit.

Alcoholism may also have a genetic component - some people may have a greater genetic predisposal towards alcoholism.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello Whocares,

How about emotional shit one cannot get over or come to terms with?

That is the cause of alcoholism. A bar would mean nothing if one came to conquer emotional shit.

So if emotional shit is the cause of alcoholism, what would you think is the cause of that emotional shit? Is there any ground cause to these things, or just 'bad luck', 'bad childhood', 'fucked up life' or the game of the genes?

A deep attachment to our desires and fears might throw us in emotionial loopholes for sure. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down, like a wheel of fortune. But a wheel it is.

Seen this way, there's no real difference between an alcoholist drinking his way to the grave and the average irrational human, no matter how well behaved, productive and accepted by society.

[Matt Gregory]

So, the bar causes one to drink? Or is one of the causes?

It's one of the causes.

How about emotional shit one cannot get over or come to terms with?

That would be a cause, too.

That is the cause of alcoholism. A bar would mean nothing if one came to conquer emotional shit.

Same with the emotional shit. It wouldn't cause alcoholism if there was no alcohol anywhere. A thing can only exist if all of its causes are in place.

Sorry, I know you people don't believe in emotions, or at least want to negate them. Sorry, my friends, they exist, no matter how rational, masculine (cough cough) you may want to become.

I believe in emotions so I don't know why you are accusing me of this. Maybe you need a drink :-)

[Leyla Shen]

I believe in emotions so I don't know why you are accusing me of this. Maybe you need a drink :-)

Now, that's funny!

[Matt Gregory]

Butttt, Matt! :)

According to your theory, he’s an effect of the bar because he has made an arbitrary, conceptual division of reality -- not because the actuality is that the bar (nor any other or numerous other cause/s he may so arbitrarily assign) is an actual cause.

The way we conceptually divide Reality is arbitrary, but once we divide it, certain causes become necessary because of it. If we conceive of a "bar", then "not-bar" comes into existence necessarily. Bar and not-bar are arbitrary, but not-bar is not arbitrary in relation to the bar. When alcoholism comes into existence, so does its causes.

If cause/s are nothing more than arbitrary, conceptual divisions of reality, then “everything is caused” is also an arbitrary, conceptual division of reality, isn't it?

Yes, but it's still necessary in relation to things.

Something which is arbitrary is, by definition, not absolute.

So, that leaves us with what?

It leaves us with the arbitrariness itself, which is absolute.

[Leyla Shen]

And further, then, by definition -- with self as cause.

[Matt Gregory]

I'm not sure what you mean.