GENIUS FORUMS

Sapius wrote:

Sapius, you are so attached to causality as the necessary conditions to create free will, but you don't realize that causality by nature totally undermines any possibility for free will.

How did you arrive at or did come to understand the “nature” of causality? Detailed description will surely help.

If each manifestation is the result of innumerable causes, then each manifestation has no choice to be what it is.

All Effect is determined, by definition. If what you are is an effect, then what you are is not a choice.

Iam as much an effect that I am a cause.

That's right, involuntarily so.

My being, not being a choice, has nothing to do with what effects I am made capable of producing.

Ok, so what is the factor that has something to do with the effects you have been caused to produce? (hint, your being is comprised of the causes that have made you)

If you disagree, then I'd like you to tell me what 'being' is, and how it exists.

Unless you believe that I as a factor in and of totality has no unique affect that contributes in and of causality.

I don't understand what you think this I is, Sapius. How on earth do you feel warranted to determine what your 'I' is? You might ask the same question to me, and my response is that I only feel warranted to provide a generalization: namely, that the existence of the 'I' has no inherent existence and is comprised of innumerable causes extending back into a beginningless past.

Now you might ask: "What about my contribution as a unique affect?"

Who is the contributor, Sapius?

God is the doer of all things.

Should a person spend time worrying about being unique, or more time determining what the rational thing is to do? I really don't see the value in all tis worrying about being unique.

My presence as an effect is as much a cause of effects produced by my presence.

Right, but I'd be careful about assuming you know what this 'I' specifically is. The difference between you and I Sapius, at least, so it seems, is that you seem to think you can know specifically what you are by using your sense perception. I deny that such knowledge can be attained through the senses. My contention is that you can only have general, non-empirical knowledge through logical truths. Empirical knowledge is great when it works, but it's not 100% certain, especially in matter pertaining to the soul. Man's soul cannot be known, as it stretches back into the unknowable past.

Again, I will drop the argument if you believe that I am nothing whatsoever.

On the contrary, I've only been saying that there is no Sapius, only God. You and I are the branches of he. You and I are the same tree.

Or that my presence contributes absolutely nothing meaningful whatsoever.

Do you think things just inherently have meaning?

I think this is an example where you are seeking to generalize something that should actually be tried more specifically. For instance, if contributing something meaningful is important to you, then you should work on becoming clear about what that exactly is, and most importantly, why that something should, as a contribution, last. A person could make it the meaning of their life to build an amazing architectural structure - however, after their death, that structure could easily be wiped out and forever forgotten.

An owner of a dog could find a lot of pleasure in feeding his dog. The dog gets very excited when it's time for some food. The meaning of the dog owner's life is to make his dog happy, and thus his life meaning is completely relative to what makes the dog happy. What happens when the dog dies? What has this man meaningfully contributed to causality after he and his dog are dead?

And please, for the last time, as requested earlier, please state the perspective you want me to respond from.

I will do no such thing.

Jamesh wrote:

Sapius, you are so attached to causality as the necessary conditions to create free will, but you don't realize that causality by nature totally undermines any possibility for free will.

I can’t find any fault with what Sapius is saying to you.

The point is not the fact that causality undermines any possibility for free will, which is true, but that the idea of free will is an egotistical emotional idea of some form of superiority over other things within the universe.

Are you really so sure that that is the point Sapius has been trying to make? Is that what he's been saying to me? I'd like you to refer to some previous posts by Sapius, because, being someone who has been conversing with him throughout the course of these last two pages, I had no idea that that was what he was getting at. In fact, one of his more recent posts seems to be an appeal that him and David think that we have some freedom - which implies that we have some, but not much. Which I find very egotistical.

From the perspective of every human in regard to their “experience of living”, free will objectively exists, and it simply does not matter that this perspective is an illusion.

Too many people comprising human activity blame, get angry, jealous, indignant, depressed, emotional when their partners or fellow humans act contrary to their hopes. Understanding why there is no free will I think will incite people to seek wisdom instead of erecting foolish hopes and expectations, as that causes indignation. Nothing could be more destructive than believing that one is free, and in most cases, belief in God and belief in free will are bed fellows. An Atheist who believes in free will is really not very common, and when he does emerge, it is a bit ridiculous.

On a personal note:

My uncle was always giving his kids junk food and buying movies for them, paying for expensive cable, etc. His kids thus grew a bit overweight. He apparently did not like this reality, and so he would say things to make them feel ashamed for being overweight, getting angry at them. All the while he continued to spoil them. His happiness was his misery, as was theirs.

I know it really isn't uncommon for some parents to spend lots of money on their kids, spoiling their kids. Their kids grow up to have no sense for the value of anything and not only are they miserable, but they are in a lot of debt because they never developed any sense for managing money wisely. Of course the parents are very resentful of their children. The children likewise tend to blame their parents for their misery, quite bitterly. But is there really anyone to blame?

And so the illusion of free will doesn't matter, right? Bullshit. Humanity is very stupid, and it would benefit immensely from considering the illusion of free will, as then we might start being obedient to truth, rather than living in ignorance of it.

Everything is an illusion, and there is no reason to separate free will from every other illusion of reality - but DELUSION only arises when one EXPECTS that they are in some way an objective entity, and they do not accept that everything is an illusion.

Could this be any more opposed to what Sapius is always arguing for? I don't think you've been following this thread very closely.

Free will is no different from any other effect, it is a “real illusion of completeness or inherency”.

Yes, and it's generally very destructive.

The belief in free will is valued by the vain.

James,

In that everything is an illusion, this does not in any way imply that everything is not real, illusions are not “unreal” or “wrong”, (or NOT REALITY), it simply means that an appearance is an arbitrary limitation of reality, in which the very arbitrariness of this limitation of appearances, is also determined.

I guess the word ‘illusion’ when used in such contexts creates a subconscious delusion that reality must then be something else, by "definition" written on the wall of course.

If EVERY-THING is an illusion, then what remains to be real?? Absolutely nothing! Hence neither of the two concepts actually apply to existence, reality. But I know, how difficult is this to realize, and BE in and of reality, which is but in and of the Now.

Cory;

God is the doer of all things.

Which means ‘causality’ is the doer, right?

I will do no such thing.

Sorry? I think you mean I can do no such think, of course. Considering you really mean what you said above.

Thanks for the chat :)

Sapius wrote:Cory;

God is the doer of all things.

Which means ‘causality’ is the doer, right?

You should turn that question back onto yourself and ask yourself if you really see it - because as it stands it doesn't seem you have much faith in it, given the attachment you appear to have to free will. If I remember correctly, you seem to think we have some freedom. I also recall you bringing David into this for some reason, I think maybe because you think he agrees with you and that he might be one of the few people who can get through to me? [shrugs] I'm really not very sure at all what you were implying. Maybe you will (ah, *can*) clear that up.

Sapius wrote:

I will do no such thing.

I think you mean I can do no such thing

Just because personally 'willing' isn't freely chosen, doesn't mean a person doesn't will. But that's not to say that the way you put it isn't correct either - because you're right, given how I dislike playing foolish games, I just can't bring myself to play them.

given how I dislike playing foolish games, I just can't bring myself to play them.

As you wish, Cory. So do I.

:)