Great video. It takes a lot of patience and a great deal of healthy rational “detachment” to analyze illogical arguments as thoroughly and accurately as the author does here.
Well, what WAS the evidence presented? I’ve assumed there was a hypothesis, maybe based on philosophical reasoning or intuition. Then it was tested on pc’s and evidence was found to support it.. But is there specific data about this and where is that data to be found?
p.s. There’s also the apparent evidence of a “single point source”:
“…an early 1950’s experiment at a prominent American university to measure energy fields surrounding the human body. If their “man from mud” theories were correct, those fields would emanate from individual cells. Yet they did not. The energy had a mysterious single point source. And while those results were hastily swept under a scientific carpet, their significance was not lost on one man.” (from promo for “Source of Life Energy” lecture series)
I believe there are about 3,000 hours of recorded lectures by LRH. If you start now and listen to just 2 lectures a day, you can get through them all in just over 4 years, 1 month, 1 week, and 3 days – or so,
Be sure to take notes on any section you come across relevant to your interest in evidence for the existence of a thetan or thetans.
This individual has done a LOT of amazing videos. His voice is disarming and his lucid descriptions just make my mind coo “Ahhhhhh … so THAT’S what reason sounds like … “
This is an extremely well done video but to me it seemed slanted, like propaganda. On the one hand it movingly appeals in various ways to our highest instincts and ideals and then juxtaposes all that with this slant, near the end: “Maybe you have to let go of the promise of immortality to truly feel alive here and now.”
And after that, the screen displays a Richard Feynman quote, which seems to imply his alignment with the above viewpoint. But I think it’s out of context if you consider the following excerpt (from the same pamphlet by Richard Poll that I quoted in my other comment today):
“The great strength of the powerful materialists who control orthodox scientific thinking is that they are banking on the fact that most people are not making an effort to understand even basic subatomic physics… Read Professor Richard Feynman’s layman’s guide to subatomic physics obtainable from bookshops and the library – QED. Once people have read the physicists’ and rationalists’ case explaining so-called paranormal phenomena they automatically become immune from falling for any supernatural absurdities. Never again will the masses fall under the spell of priestcraft. Never again will people be fooled by pseudo-scientists who are guilty of suppressing uncomfortable discoveries in physics solely to keep their power structures intact.”
Reading his whole article (or maybe just the other excerpts I quoted in my other comment) it’s clear that the above is in the context of describing how quantum physics explains scientifically the so-called “paranormal” – and that we do not die but live on after body death. 🙂
BTW, I also noted that this video seems to have been produced in Britain (if the accent of the narrator means anything) and the other one you posted in a previous thread – to do with Dr. Susan Blackmore and the idea that the brain knows our decision 7 seconds before we know it – was apparently produced in Britain too. And according to this article I’ve been quoting, Dr. Blackmore speaks for the vested-interest science establishment.
(Hey…maybe the Brits are trying to get back control of the colonies – the land of the free! ;-))
“Reading his whole article (or maybe just the other excerpts I quoted in my other comment) it’s clear that the above is in the context of describing how quantum physics explains scientifically the so-called “paranormal” – and that we do not die but live on after body death.”
Well, I hope you are right! Really, I do! Being a spiritual being that lives forever would be AWESOME. Imagine the freedom! The wisdom! The power of postulation!
It would so-so-so NOT SUCK!
But … you again are quoting references instead of describing or siting evidences. Show me evidence, not articles. I saw an article the other day ON THE HUFFINGTON POST FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! If I quote this article, have I provided evidence that Bigfoot exists?
No. But here goes:
“Scientists are 99% Sure They Have Found the Yeti.”
K. I read the article. SAME OLD BIGFOOT BULLSHIT. They found footprints. Hair samples. Blurry photographs.
Let me tell ya, if there really is an OT VIII in the planet IT’S FREAKING BIGFOOT!
Nobody can catch that guy! What a game he is playing with us human suckers!
But … I … um …
well …
I don’t believe in Bigfoot till he is either safe in a Zoo, mounted above a fireplace or is holding a meeting with the United Nations to negotiate a land deal to live free from us stupid humans.
I wrote a post recently where I mentioned some of the good writers who post here. How could I forget about you! Besides having a very large “data base” of information, you are probably the most wildly imaginative one of all. Certainly unique, definitely an original. Thank you for your “creations.” 🙂
I’ve been considering some ideas that may be of interest on this thread:
Determinism: any person, at any given time, has one and only one course of action open to him, and no choice whatsoever. Rephrased – under determinism, what can be done is done, whatever was not done simply could not be done.
Free will: any person, at any given time, has more than one course of action open to him, and is always in the process of choosing a particular course of action. Free will does not have to be unlimited in scope or action to exist. It only has to be the corollary of determinism where there is no choice made at all, for there is no choice possible.
Integrity: With respect to the free will versus determinism issue, we assume that the end-goal is discovering the truth, free of bias or mistaken ideas, with a commitment to renouncing mistakes and bias immediately upon detection. This appears to be the ideal presented in the video.
Course of action: Acceptance of a particular idea or set of beliefs, resulting in a particular state of mind with a resultant set of choices resulting in particular actions/responses.
To have an open mind at all, per the concepts examined in this video, it seems to me that one must assume the existence of free will, free will being evidenced in the primary assumption that there can be a truth at all and that one SHOULD subscribe to that truth immediately when it is detected. “Should” immediately implies that one “can” do what should be done. If one can do what one should do, then a choice is being made. Under determinism, there is no choice to be made because no choices are possible.
This has been kind of a weird thread for me. I was totally grooving on the discussion of open-mindedness but the track jump to free-will is like jumping back on the merry-go-round.
I liked your article – thought your article on free will was one of the best I’ve ever read. But on the other hand, aside from simply stating one’s opinion, the topic of free will is like, “well, if you have to ask, . . . ” Where does it go? It’s not something which responds to arguing very well since the metaphysicist says there is the wild variable and the determinist simply says that choices are bouncing the only way they could have bounced. Everyone that I know anything about operates as if there is free will NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY about the gods or whatever. Is this your experience?
Yes. It is a tricky subject for discussion. That may have pushed my latest blog post forward a day or two (although the post was initially inspired by Salve’s comment on me asking for possible subjects a couple of weeks ago).
Hi Chris – thanks for your acknowledgment of what I wrote – but I have to confess that it is the result of a great deal of study and research into both science and philosophy – call it a “book review” of sorts.
It has been my experience that everyone I know operates as if there is free will no matter what they say, regardless of any other beliefs they may assert.
“…free will being evidenced in the primary assumption that there can be a truth at all and that one should subscribe to that truth immediately when it is detected.”
I call that beating science within the rules of their own game. And it seems to me any other viewpoint would result in apathy or anxiety. Hurray for free will! 🙂
I was so rooting you on with your framework of free-will in games because I thought that pretty much nailed it, but this comment? I don’t follow how this is beating science and why would apathy and anxiety result from determinism? If you want to think about it in terms of emotion, determinism would result in a calming effect by removing grand motives like evil from the world. Wouldn’t it?
Don’t the theists routinely acquiesce to God’s will – another form of determinism? Generally speaking I wouldn’t say that one’s view of the source of creation categorizes them into the category of requiring drugs to function… haha
Looks like Maria answered the main question – in a nutshell, it’s all in the meaning of the word “should,” which implies choice. And what I meant by “beating scientists at their own game” is that the idea of “should” is key to their own basic assumption or basis of operation, i.e. that a scientist “should” be (open mindedly) in search of and subscribe to truth.
Your last paragraph was funny! And I see what you mean about a calming effect. But at the time I wrote my comment I was thinking that I would feel sort of schizophrenic if I believed that my thoughts and actions weren’t mine – hence “anxiety.” Right now thinking about it, that seems a little “theoretical” (LOL).
Hmm, from how I actually read me, the idea of an open mind is absurd IF there is not free will.
I agree with that 😀
You also say “Free will does not have to be unlimited in scope or action to exist. It only has to be the corollary of determinism where there is no choice made at all,”
I guess one could cut down the last line to
“It only has to be the corollary of determinism where there is no choice at all,”
Removing the verb “made” shouldn’t affect anything as
if determinism, then no choice => no choice can be made …
Hi Chris: They are both working definitions, the most concise definitions I could come up with as summaries. They were derived from my religious and philosophical studies of determinism and free will outlined by a tremendous number of philosophers over many centuries. My attempt to simplify a subject on which tomes and tomes have been written.
After I watched the video, I understood that there could be no open mindedness of science without the ability to choose / select lines of thought or exploration. As I see it, there has to be an ability to make a choice among alternative choices. Science experiments and deliberates based on choices made, however limited the alternatives may be.
The definition of determinism denies any possibility of choice. Yet, on the same breath, science urges that one SHOULD immediately discard a particular choice when it is found to be incorrect. SHOULD implies the existence of choices. If I tell you that you SHOULD HAVE done something, it is an assertion that you had an alternative and you chose / selected the wrong alternative.
I think that it is the very existence of alternative choices that enables free will. Possibilities. Probabilities. And their relative value. And value is judgment and judgment is a choice made between alternatives.
Maria, IMHO determinism is not confined to only one output. One view is that every choice in infinite universes exists at once so in infinite universes it feels like free will. In this view it’s really just every potential experiencing it’s given space/time reality.
This is the ManyWolds view. I contest that it could be called determinism in the truest sense where an outcome is determined from previous outcomes – because per this view it isn’t (rather the opposite). It is an effort to explain QM. I lean toward labeling ManyWorlds as unscientific, at least in several of its forms, since it seems unfalsifiable much like a theory stating that everything was created yesterday.
In expressing your opinion, you have expressed your choice. IMHO, an individual can choose to believe in a single universe, or multiple universes, or a completely illusory universe, or no universe at all. Since the essence / construct / explanation of every one of these is based on theories, it seems to me that it comes down to what makes sense to the individual. what aligns with the individual’s already chosen beliefs/theories or who makes the most compelling argument / inferences / opportunities, etc. for the individual. Or the choice could simply be based on what is in the individual’s projected best interests – as an example, what will obtain the most funding or protect a coveted position or perhaps allow another’s free will to prevail.
Even with the choice of multiple universes, scientific integrity (or just integrity in general) requires that when an individual discovers that a conclusion is incorrect in multiple universes, it must be discarded immediately in favor of the truer conclusion. This is still a demonstration of the event of making a choice. Within multiple universes the choices would be multiple even if they are all the same choice. Or an individual can choose to ignore proof, rationality, or even common sense, choosing a conclusion that cannot be proven and thus choose NOT to subscribe to scientific open mindedness. (I think some people actually pride themselves on being “different.”)
It appears that this happens frequently enough for the author to take note of it and choose to produce a video on the subject. Right or wrong, choices are being made by individuals. Free will isn’t “true” will or “right” will, and free will assumes that one can be wrong and can choose to hold a course of action of asserted (rather than proven or even consensus) belief or conclusion. Its a matter of choice.
IMHO, free will is in the choice. Apparent, true, right, wrong, limited or not there is still a choosing going on. It seems to me that exercising free will with integrity is a choice as well, a choice to attempt to subscribe to free will with integrity. IMHO, free will can be extended by deliberately choosing to exercise free will. I choose to explore it with integrity as best I can. How far it can be extended is an unknown I am presently exploring. Perhaps there is an absolute will that does result in absolute action anywhere, anytime. But it seems to me that if that exists for me, that means it exists for you as well and if it is absolute for both of us, then it seems to me that there would be no division / separateness between you and me. Or maybe my choices ripple into yours and vice-versa to the nth to the nth exponent and so we are choosing together and maybe I can’t make a choice without you and you and you and me and me and me at all. Maybe YOU and YOU and YOU are my multiple universes and it is all just one universe after all. And maybe that’s why we all work so hard to get the other to subscribe to our CHOSEN view as we attempt to climb to the top of the heap and cry: I’m the King of the Castle! But of course this is all speculation on my part, views I choose to examine.
I have absolutely no disagreement with anything in the OP video or with scientific methods at all. But I’ve been wondering why it is that even though there seems to be so much evidence of such things as Near Death Experiences and Past Lives, that these are still not accepted as valid by science. So I decided to see what I could find on the internet and googled “proof of the soul.” I found a very relevant article on a British website that seems to answer my question, even tying in quantum physics! “THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH,” by Michael Roll. http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html
Here are some excerpts:
“There are two expert opinions as to what so-called paranormal phenomena are, but in this ‘free’ country the British people are only allowed access to the explanation that is politically correct…
“The parapsychologist Dr. Susan Blackmore has been given complete freedom of every radio and television programme that is meant to be examining the subject. This is because she is the establishment mouthpiece and…protects the scientific establishment’s adopted stance, which only gives a materialistic model of the universe. Professor J. Wheeler, a top physicist, stated in 1994 that acceptance of survival or paranormal phenomena would destroy the basis of science as taught in our universities…
“We have had the experimental proof of survival after death ever since Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments in the leading scientific journal of his day – The Quarterly Journal of Science – in 1874. These were repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions. International teams of scientists then repeated the experiments and obtained the same results. People who had once lived on earth came back and proved to these scientific teams that they had conquered death and were still very much alive. This is what Professor Charles Richet, the French Nobel Laureate for medical science, said about the experiments: ‘There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as a scientific fact’…
“Read Professor Richard Feynman’s layman’s guide to subatomic physics obtainable from bookshops and the library – QED. Once people have read the physicists’ and rationalists’ case explaining so-called paranormal phenomena they automatically become immune from falling for any supernatural absurdities. Never again will the masses fall under the spell of priestcraft. Never again will people be fooled by pseudo-scientists who are guilty of suppressing uncomfortable discoveries in physics solely to keep their power structures intact.”
Yes, Susan Blackmore is a favorite of the BBC who in my opinion are biased in favour of atheism (because they see it as pro-science and they believe science (sociology, psychology) backs up their Left-wing views). The BBC has huge influence in UK through tv and radio and around the world
K. I read the article Marildi. If you have evidence against the meat hypothesis or evidence FOR free will and/or a real spirit body, SHOW AND/OR DESCRIBE THE EVIDENCE ITSELF not the references TO the EVIDENCE.
The article says what you say … BUT … NO … SCIENTIFIC … DATA.
It lists TONS of things to Google as well as old, obscure books that supposedly contain the data and some from almost a hundred years ago.
Hmm. I know where this is going.
I’ve seen this before and have run this wild goose chase dozens of times in my life to find NO PROTOCOLS WILL APPEAR THAT FALSIFY THE MEAT HYPOTHESIS OR PROVIDE REAL EVIDENCE FOR FREE WILL OR A SPIRIT BODY.
It is going to eventually lead to a writer that claims an experiment was done and NONE OF THE PROTOCOLS OR DATA ON HOW TO REPRODUCE IT WILL EXIST. But I will read tons of rhetoric about how science is ignoring this amazing research!
Okay. Sure.
IF SOMEONE WOULD ACTUALLY POST THESE EXPERIMENTS AND PROTOCOLS SO I CAN DO THEM MYSELF, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
Now. In it, there is supposedly an actual experiment where something TRULY AMAZING is occurring in Mexico. I won’t say WHAT IT IS cuz of spoilers.
It will blow your mind. I was stunned and piqued immediately into emails and requests for more data on the experiment.
Now just try to get the protocols and data from this famous Mexican Scientist! If you do, you did better than I AND I REALLY FUCKING TRIED. I haven’t looked in over a year, but the last I tried, all my requests and searching have met only silence.
Let’s see… you believe you are a meat body, which seems to be composed of a vast, vast number of particles, somehow all hanging together in a cohesive unit through forces which cannot be seen but can be inferred from evidence that is seen with one or more meat bodies (bodies that filter out all elements/forces outside of their optimum spectrum of experience) but can be detected with instruments that can be used by a meat body to identify something in a way that the meat body can perceive… and that detection means… but no meat body can be really sure about that anyway because all too often that meaning is found to be inaccurate AGAIN!!!!! and one must subscribe to another meaning on the hope that this new one will be better… CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE…
From the meat body perspective, because you (and other meat bodies too!) have not PERSONALLY experienced any other mode of existence, all other modes must be dismissed because you have not PERSONALLY experienced it and others are required to somehow cause you to experience their experience or admit to the “great meat god of the universe” that their choices were wrong, their own experiences invalid, and everything they see is an illusion, including their own perceptions, experiences and choices, i.e. free will. Failure to get it right means certain death and total extinction of all possibility of choice? No wait a minute! Failure isn’t really even an issue – meat bodies die. Period. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust, and one’s silly imaginings and ideas have no bearing on anything anyway.
As far as choices go, it seems obvious to me that you personally make them continually, constantly, and present them with great fervor, including an apparent belief in your own righteousness with every post you make on this blog. But I may have misread all this and perhaps it is truly irrelevant anyway, since you are meat and we are meat and meat does not have free will (however limited free will may be) and you and we are only doing what can be done anyway. And it somehow follows that all we can do is accept the “real evidence” presented by the “real” scientists of the world, who are bastions of truth and reality a la meat – they who have the “real” EVIDENCE so necessary to do what we must do anyway (except when they make mistakes!) but they made those mistakes because they couldn’t do anything else but make those mistakes so its all good anyway. Even more annoying, they won’t give me a pass to get into the CERN labs so I can verify what the hell they are on about.
An amazingly frustrating scenario!! Can’t say I like it much. With that said, I think I’ll kick back for a bit, go get a beer, munch on cheetos, relax and watch my favorite meat body football team on tv, and rest contented in the belief that if that’s what I am doing, then I am doing just exactly what I can do and I can’t do anything else but what I can do. (Heaves a sigh of relief!!) And what’s more – to hell with the health food enthusiasts and anti-tv people!! As meat, I will die. Its just a matter of when. So bottoms up!
If we are meat, we can learn to teach our meat with memes to SEE our ego delusion and let it go.
How would you live if you knew your life really didn’t matter and you really didn’t have free will?
Would you see such a life as a free gift? One with no bill to pay or reward to earn?
Why, your meat could learn to be free to love absolutely without risk. You could learn to try ANYTHING you wanted to because you would know as Steve Jobs said that, “You are already naked. There is no reason to not follow your heart.”
Perhaps the greatest words ever spoken. Jobs’ commencement speech was perhaps some of the best rhetoric spoken by an American IMHO.
Bottoms up? or Follow your heart?
Hmm … seems like a choice there … is it real or just a dream?
Donno. It is so beautiful though I really can’t stand it. And regardless, I am free to let it happen.
Could you make a case for a particle that creates itself?
Could you make a case for a particle that creates itself?
A very good question Geir, and one that is definitely not answered in the meme construct.
“The thesis of this book is that what makes us different is our ability to imitate” (p. 3 – The Meme Machine by S. Blackmore)
This appears to be based squarely on an assertion that imitation is a natural and pervasive ability of human beings, an ability almost non-existent in animals.
This unique ability of human beings is posited as the reason why human beings have evolved culture and why animals (and lower life-forms by inference) have not evolved culture.
“Memes are habits, skills, songs, stories, or any other kind of information that is copied from person to person. Memes, like genes, are replicators. That is, they are information that is copied with variation and selection. Because only some of the variants survive, memes (and hence human cultures) evolve. Memes are copied by imitation, teaching and other methods, and they compete for space in our memories and for the chance to be copied again. Large groups of memes that are copied and passed on together are called co-adapted meme complexes, or memeplexes.” http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/memetics/about%20memes.htm
Perceptions and emotions are NOT memes: “perceptions and emotions are not memes because they are ours alone and we may never pass them on.” (p. 15 – The Meme Machine by S. Blackmore)
She makes it quite clear that memes are copied from person to person. They are NOT intuited, deduced, extrapolated, or innovated.
Blackmore cites the increase in tool variety in the archeological record as evidence of the proliferation of memes. What is ignored is that there must have been creative processes, invention or innovation prior to imitation for imitation to occur.
Self is defined as “a bunch of memes.” (p. 231 – The Meme Machine by S. Blackmore)
Per her definition of memes, emotions, and perceptions (and the accompanying attitudes from these by inference) are not included in the construct of self.
On the surface, the concept of a meme is a fine idea. But to assert that it is the basis of culture and the genus of culture, and the defining element of self is an assertion with limited merit and very poor evidence.
For example: it is simply not true that animals do not imitate. Cheetah mothers, for example, do teach their young how to hunt. Young cheetahs who are not taught by their mothers do not survive. Sheepdogs are taught by mature sheepdogs by imitation. There is a wealth of studies that indicate that animals do indeed learn by imitation, just as we do.
On one breath, memes (which are imitations or copies) are cited as the basis for progress/evolution, on the same breath it is explained that memes are not passed on intact, they are VARIED based on some form of discernment. A variation is NOT a copy. A variation is a mistake or a deliberate innovation or extrapolation.
And that variation is then chosen for copying based on a judgment or evaluation process that has to do with inspecting the copies and evaluating their worth. That process has nothing to do with copying. And that would be another component of self not included in the “bunch of memes” definition of self.
It seems obvious to me that culture certainly results from the preservation and transmission of knowledge from generation to generation, from individual to individual, from human to animal and vice-versa. While I agree completely that copying and imitation is a major factor in transmission and the preservation and propagation of knowledge (good, bad and indifferent), it is clearly not NOT the primary impetus for cultural evolution, change and innovation.
How about we just say that one of the major ways that people learn is by imitation. When imitation is accompanied by discernment and innovation, and there is some effort to employ integrity in choosing better ideas or concepts, we make progress or at the very least, variations that might result in some progress.
But of course, there is your question, Geir: Could you make a case for a particle that creates itself? Restated: there had to be something to copy in the first place, even on a purely physical level!
Someone once said that :
“The purpose of education is to replace an empty mind with an open one …”
(I guess this eg. refers to learning methods for reasoning as descibed in this little video.)
… and I think it was the famous Niels Bohr who said, :
“Now as we have found a paradox, we can make some progress …”
… but someone also said that :
“We are never so brilliant as when we acutally are wrong”
This video is really nice, this is really well explained I think …
It seems to me that this guy from the way he speaks and argues makes it seem to me that is not really out to convince of his brilliancy or that he is right but instead wants us to understand because he believes we will gain from being open-minded.
I am sure his point of view is valid not only regarding science but any environment, say religious, political or social. There are always some things that are considered as completely true, so called “conventional wisdom”, and there are things that are considered as outright heresy …
For some reason people tend to follow the winner, the one who “is right” we think, though very often this is only the most powerful one. There seems to be little political place for those who can admit they are wrong. Thus lots of arguing often acts as a front to hide more dubious power struggles and a cover for some sinister purposes.
For my own sake, when argumentation gets very emotional or “instrinsic”, I usually start looking for the real motives instead and whom of the debaters who are the least fixed on “winning” the argument.
Tor, you said, “…lots of arguing often acts as a front to hide more dubious power struggles and a cover for some sinister purposes.”
Sounds right. I picked up a sort of “strain” in some of the “this-is-scientific!” materialistic presentations (while they would probably accuse those with a spiritual viewpoint of being the “emotional” ones). It reminded me of “The lady doth protest too much.” LRH quoted that Shakespeare line and also said that criticism which is “just a bit strained” is a symptom of overts. (HCOB “Justification”) A similar dynamic is expressed in “When one does not feel the urge to either criticize or defend a subject or idea, then one retains one’s freedom in that area”- Geir Isene 🙂 (Of course, he has been known to accuse ME of such too, but nevermind that. LOL)
You also said, “For some reason people tend to follow the winner, the one who “is right” we think, though very often this is only the most powerful one.”
Also called the “winning valence.” And, “might makes right.”
But now even the mechanics of the mind, like the physical universe, can possibly be explained in terms of quantum physics, i.e. wave function collapse and entanglement. Looks to me like the “most powerful” postulate (energy wise) does the collapsing.
Hi marildi, I have to think further on a reply to you … 🙂 Not sure if I understand all of it (except for that “Lady doth …”-thing, having to elder sisters, three daughters, an ex-wife and a girlfriend … 🙂 ) but re-reading sure helps every now an then … 🙂
Hehe, weeeeeell … 😀
But actually I do not think it is you that is hard to understand, I fear it’s my own capabilities and knowledge that are failiing … 😀
You see, me not understanding you doesn’t necessarily mean that you are hard to understand … 🙂
OK, I do be a scholar (edu appx similar to BSc), not that heavier reasoner, no at all like Geir …
… and a slow reasoner for that, but I think I know why really … 🙂
Yep, we agree on that emotional side, when people heavily attack or defend an opinion, then my doubts come forth …
On the winning stuff though, I tried to refer more to all those non-argumental-power issues (financial, political, even physical) that usually are not considered so bonafide in our modern society and thus has to “hidden” in other intentions that instead can be argued for, so that a group might fulfill their less “ethic” intentions via a kind of scapegoat …
Because what I see is that people do not necessarily follow the “Geir Isene”s of the world, but more often the “George Bush”-es, “Angela Merkel’ers” and even Stalins and Hitlers of the world …
I knew it – a humble scholar. 🙂 But you say “…a slow reasoner for that, but I think I know why really…” That got my interest. Assuming it’s true that you’re a slow reasoner, I wonder what the “why” is. Maybe a matter of how different minds work, with their different values. An interesting subject.
The subject of how to know who to believe or what to believe is a heavy one. On an individual and face-to-face basis I can get a sense of a person and their intentions (given just a bit of time) and feel pretty confident. But even one-to-one on a via of written communication, as with blog comments, it can be uncertain at times. (BTW, you yourself give a sense of being a trustworthy guy. Not to make you blush, he he.) It’s not even so much the uncertainty about other posters’ “real meaning,” but whether or not they have or will duplicate mine! (LOL) What a drill in written communication when we try to express our inner feelings and thoughts.
No, I haven’t read Hesse – sounds pretty deep for a “slow reasoner.” 😉
Well Hesse isn’t always so heavy, except “The Glass Bead Game”, but very deep yes.
“Siddharta” is one of those rare books that are so beatiful it made me weep …
But reasoning, yeah … – Reasoning I guess is a skill one uses in one’s life tactics / strategics, depending on one’s experience with succeeding with it. So if you get positive feedback on reasoning with one’s family (typically your siblings and / or parents), you keep it as a strategy.
If not, I guess one looks for other tools … .. and one thing I really did learn is that you don’t win argument with your older sister, def not with TWO … 😀
So my tools became my ability to remember, repeat, and see patterns, thus I excelled at lots of the methodical school subjects …
… over years I also learned to trust my ability to see through, almost with intuitive understanding. However Intuition and gut feeling isn’t really that “black magic” as a lot people would like to consider it as, but more those things that your brain can analyze without yourself putting words to it …
I think I’ve read that psychologists have found that one’s brain analyze body language something like a 1000 times faster than anyone’s bran can analyze what a person is saying.
Btw., in my engineering studies (as mentioned prev.), I came with grades most students would envy … still.
… and so I never felt that I needed to practise reasoning and argumentation …
… and in other subjects where one would need to reason oneself or together with others to a goal that maybe wasn’t even absolute, I didn’t do it that well …
I guess it’s not funny with people who see the answer right away.
Anyway, then taking up and practising reasoning much later of course is much more heavier and the questions is always is it worth the gain etc. …
However as you kind of realized, my greatest feature (is that the right word) and also my worst tactics-wise, is my honesty … 🙂
Okay, from your short but sweet testimony, “Siddhartha” is one I’ll have to put on my reading list.
On the subject of reasoning ability, one thing I figure correlates (maybe directly) is one’s grasp of language. And even with English as your second language it’s clear you do fine with language.
You would more than likely be a good reasoner if that were your disposition – or if you “put your mind” to it. Actually, what you wrote about free will on another post today – “It only has to be the corollary of determinism where there is no choice at all” – I’m still working on understanding! (LOL)
The other great subject you brought up was intuition. It has come up here and there on these threads and as a result I think I’ve learned more about what LRH means by Knowing through “pervading the object.” (In case you wondered where that datum is from, Geir reminded me it’s from the “Route to Infinity” lectures.) I figure “object” has to include the objects in the mind – i.e. all the stored data. And when we “directly know” something it’s from an instant scan of that data – not realizing much, if anything, of exactly what was scanned. I think this is pretty much what you were saying too, except I’m not sure how much the brain is involved and how much it isn’t.
The other kinds of “objects” would be not only those of the physical universe but the universes/minds of others. My idea is that it’s a result of pervading those objects that we know “intuitively” what is there. But I have no theory for what is meant by direct knowledge of God (or whatever word fits the concept) Do you? Maybe it’s communication/contact with a quantum physics sub/under-layer of reality. That’s a notion I’ve come up with since I learned a bit about QM from the scientist types here.
Well, it seems honesty might indeed be your worst tactic – proved by people tending to talk (or write) your ear off. I hope your sisters and the rest of the ladies have gotten you used to it. 😉 But actually, honesty is a great feature, right up at the top of the list. There has to be trust for communication to flow easily. And lately I’ve been thinking it’s as important to feel you are trustED as to feel trust IN. Otherwise, the freedom OF free will gets curtailed. 🙂
Okay, the “Honorary Scientologist” (per Marildi) AKA “A Lousy OSA Agent” (per Marty) had a “cog” for both sides of this topic.
SIDE 1: MEAT HYPOTHESIS TRUE AND SPIRIT BODY IS FALSE:
If we are only meat wads, we are free because nothing we do will ever come from a real self. We are a dream and can do no wrong cuz there is no moral choice for meat to make. Therefore we can do whatever we want to: MEAT IS FREE AND LIFE IS A FREE GIFT CREATED OF DREAMING MEAT WADS.
SIDE 2: MEAT HYPOTHESIS FALSE AND SPIRIT BODY IS TRUE:
If we are Thetans, we are free cuz we live forever. Any action taken in any lifetime will eventually (given infinite cycles) will work itself out until we are free beings who have dealt with the other free beings that are creating MEST. Therefore we can do whatever we want to: THETANS ARE FREE AND LIFE IS A FREE GIFT OF DREAMING THETANS.
So, may I suggest we all just do what we want and be free? Freedom is really the goal after all. We just need to stop asking permission for it and just live it.
So screw everybody, I’m doing whatever I want to do.
Meat and Thetans can be free if either one or both actually exist. And for me, it’s just a matter of doing zazen. It doesn’t matter if the sitting is done by a thetan or a meat wad. In either case …
Marildi, thanks for your ARC. Really appreciate your warm attitude toward a meat muggle.
So, in appreciation, here is some food recipes for you to enjoy on my Vegan Food Blog. (I follow the Food Science of Doctor Esselystyn based on his book “How to Reverse Heart Disease”)
Perhaps for all the hell I put you through you may get some decent food out of it!
After I have copied my molecular on my spiffy teleporter from Star Trek, I decide to get creative.
I take Pi and look through it randomly with a quantum computer for a code that can be transmuted into a meat body with my hacked teleporter.
I push print and there it is and it’s an exact copy of Geir Isene.
CONCLUSION: If something exists mathematically or physically, then it can be copied. But nothing can create itself without it already existing mathematically. But everything that exists mathematically ALWAYS exists. And anything that exists physically exists mathematically. But not all things that exist mathematically exist physically.
There is no “self-creation by self” because you can only be if you already are.
((NOTE: THIS IS BULLSHIT AND I KNOW IT. BUT THESE ARE CREATIVE EXERCISES LIKE MOST OF THE STUFF HERE. ITS THE BEST I COULD COME UP WITH ON THE FLY. SUSAN BLACKMORE HAS ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT MEMETICS THEORY IS FAR FROM CIOMPLETE))
Math according to KG, never is complete.
Some think it can be DIFFERENT with DIFFERENT RULES.
Assume for a minute that math could be a living thing that is ever evolving. The Pythagoreans thought number was God. Assume the strange view that such evolution could emerge from the idea of being instantly complete yet never finished at the same time.
Since math exits, then it can be copied. And across different universes, different maths could emerge and face a struggle for selection. Those selected are copied and the contest rages on.
The copies, could evolve differently based on their unique mathematics. Different universes could create different mathematics that are both instant and never complete.
These mathematical realities would both exist in the emptiness and both be different. Since math is ALL in the emptiness and they all exist in their entirety, they are all together in unity.
And 2 + 2 would always equal four. But that 0 guy could create a lot of problems and variation. And “Whenever you have variation, selection and heredity, then evolution must occur or design out of chaos without the aid of mind.”
And the types of math you embrace could be a result of the kind of universe you are in.
MATH COULD THEN BE USED TO MAKE UNIVERSES.
IT COULD BE DERIVED FROM EXISTING UNIVERSES.
We thought there was ONE planet. Then we thought there was ONE solar system. And then we thought there was ONE galaxy. And then we thought there was ONE universe.
AN AD-HOC CASE FOR INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE OF “NUMBER” AS IT’S OWN REALITY
1. IF NUMBER WERE IT’S OWN REALITY, IT WOULD HAVE THEORIES AND BRANCHES OF ITSELF THAT EXIST OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL REALITIES OF OUR UNIVERSE.
QUESTION: DO SUCH BRANCHES EXIST?
2. IF NUMBER EXISTED OUTSIDE OF OUR UNIVERSE AND CONTROLLED IT, YOU WOULD EXPECT IT TO ACT IN SUPERIOR WAYS IN REGARDS TO ITS MANIFESTATION.
QUESTION: HAVE YOU EVER NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A NUMBER FIVE WHEN YOU NEEDED ONE? WHERE DOES THIS “5” COME FROM?
3. IF NUMBER EXISTED OUTSIDE OF OUR UNIVERSE AND CONTROLLED IT, YOU WOULD EXPECT THE UNIVERSE TO BE USED BY IT, AND YET NUMBER BE SEPARATE AND INTANGIBLE.
QUESTION: CAN THE NUMBER 5 TAKE UP SPACE WITH 5 PING PONG BALLS? CAN IT EXIST WITHOUT SPACE? AGAIN, WHERE DOES “5” COME FROM WHEN YOU LOOK AT YOUR HAND?
4. IF NUMBER IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY THAT CONTROLLED THE UNIVERSE, YOU WOULD EXPECT SCIENTISTS TO MAKE MAJOR DISCOVERIES OF IT WITHOUT THE NEED FOR MUCH PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION FROM THE UNIVERSE.
QUESTION: WHAT ELSE BESIDES PENCIL AND PAPER DOES ONE NEED?
The bottom line that I’m throwing up for suggestion is that Pythagoras was right about the soul. It is mathematical. I hang around here because I’m a Pythagorean by heart and there is no other place I know of where people can see the soul as a static.
I want to throw out there that it may be possible for a soul to exist as a MATHEMATICAL VIEWPOINT OF REALITY THAT IS TRUE AND UNIQUE TO ITSELF.
We tend to think that there is only one “TRUE” math. What if … there is more more than one? And each math was its own point of view? Would each “TRUE” math in fact be …
You know …
A spirit?
A weeping angel?
Any other suggestions for a name?
And IF it was true and MULTIPLE TRUE UNIQUE MATHEMATICAL VIEWPOINTS were in collusion with OTHER mathematical viewpoints to agree on common mathematics they all internally share what would you get?
A shared universe?
And depending on the creation there could be a Meat-Thetan-Geir and a Meat-Only-Geir. Same Geir, same actions, but different “Intel Inside.” And what about a Geir that had a Katageek for a spirit?
Geirs, Geirs everywhere across the potentials, but which one has free will?
I don’t think any UNIQUE MATHEMATICAL SPIRT HAS FREE WILL OF ITSELF. I think if it exists then it requires the co-creation of others for the story of free will to manifest. And if the STORY exists … we at least have something to long for. Free Will exists as a beautiful story for right now. And we’ve yet to find out for sure how it is authored.
If I have free will, it’s because it was created by the existence and help of others. I certainly didn’t nurse myself or change out my diapers. I didn’t’ build my own crib.
And yet, the math of katageek exists and I can lists hundreds of ways that it does.
How exactly do you PERSONALLY define and identify free will? Then it may be possible to enter into discussion with you.
Please do not make the assumption that I already know what YOUR definition is, for this is a phrase that has been defined/delineated in many different ways in many different philosophies and theologies, with many different properties and associations. i.e. what are the markers you are using to name / recognize / identify / define / realize “free will?”
I would say free will would be the ability to choose to NOT kill my family and then go on a shooting spree and kill 13 people like this guy with a brain tumor did.
“I would say free will would be the ability to choose to NOT kill my family and then go on a shooting spree and kill 13 people like this guy with a brain tumor did.”
Since you have not taken the time to state this as a definition, I will attempt to restate and generalize your example of free will into a possible definition:
Free will is the ability to deliberately and perfectly control all participants, events and qualities of existence, internal and external, subjective and objective.
If free will is prevailing then there would be no death, no accidents, no mistakes, no malfunctions, no conflict, no harm, no entropy, no destruction, no failure.
It follows that if I have free will by this definition, I must be the only one who has free will and I must know at all times what constitutes perfection for all. Since my free will and my perfection must prevail at all times, to qualify as free will, there can be no other free will to tamper with it or do anything different from what I will. No one under my purview may die, make mistakes, malfunction, bring any harm, or do anything that would mar perfection. No thing under my purview may dissolve, change, disintegrate, or alter in any way that would mar perfection. Finally, perfection must be perfectly recognizable as perfection and wholly accepted as perfection by all life-forms participating within that perfection.
“Free will is the ability to deliberately and perfectly control all participants, events and qualities of existence, internal and external, subjective and objective.”
No. Here is a better definition of what I’m saying.
“FREE WILL IS THE IMMUTABLE ABILITY OF A BEING TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES AND WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SPIRITUAL BEING IF SUCH POWER COULD TRULY MANIFEST.”
If a spiritual being’s ABILITY TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES is connected to cause and effect then the being does not have free will and it is NOT A SPIRITUAL BEING AT ALL BUT A DELUSIONAL OUTCOME OF FROM CAUSE AND EFFECT.
AKA: Meat.
Now, lots of OTs here. Lots of spiritual beings. Here is a Reality “Free Will” check for you:
TEST #1: Find a food you don’t like. Choose to like it more than any other kind.
TEST #2: Find music you don’t like. Choose to love it more than any other kind.
TEST #3: Find things you think aren’t funny but that other people think are funny. Find them funny.
TEST #4: Choose to not be sleepy and don’t sleep for four days.
Cuz, you may notice that you TEND TO CHOOSE THINGS YOU NATURALLY ARE DRAWN TO. WHAT IS THIS DRAWING FORCE?
“If a spiritual being’s ABILITY TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES is connected to cause and effect then the being does not have free will and it is NOT A SPIRITUAL BEING AT ALL BUT A DELUSIONAL OUTCOME OF FROM CAUSE AND EFFECT.”
That is a leap of logic. It is wrong – and here is how I can prove it: By asking you to prove the the word “connected” makes the sentence true. Glove is on the ground.
Chivalry is not dead! 🙂
But is it clear which way “connected” is meant? There’s (1) “united, joined, or linked” and (2) “linked coherently.”
It doesn’t matter which of these is used. Katageek; Go for it. Prove.
Yup. It’s wrong and sucks big time. It’s illogical.
“FREE WILL IS THE IMMUTABLE ABILITY OF A BEING TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES AND WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SPIRITUAL BEING IF SUCH POWER COULD TRULY MANIFEST IN A MATERIAL UNIVERSE WITHIN ONES OWN BODY.”
If a person PERCEIVES THEMSELVES AS A spiritual being’s but whose ABILITY TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES is only a direct result of cause and effect, then that being does not have free will and it is NOT A SPIRITUAL BEING AT ALL BUT A DELUSIONAL OUTCOME OF CAUSE AND EFFECT THAT MISUNDERSTANDS ITS TRUE SOURCE.
If a Thetan really “runs” a meat body, then the Thetan should be able to CHOOSE PREFERENCES AND OPTIONS.
And yet, many top OTs are heavy smokers and cannot quit. An OT VIII in Austria admits to being unable to quit smoking and yet claims to be OT VIII. He even sells e-cigs for a healthier option. And from all counts he’s a great guy.
Forget picking up pencils with the mind, these OTs cannot even change their own preferences or choose to override them with free WILL POWER.
And that IS the problem.
Free Will means FREE WILL POWER.
And if a Thetan were running a meat body, you would think it could choose to laugh during torture. Or just shut down it’s acceptance of pain. Or get hooked on crack and quit just for fun.
Or just say no to the emotional madness caused by a brain tumor and choose NOT to kill his family or over a dozen strangers from the Tower at the University of Texas.
Now, next round… tell me what logical fallacy this constitutes:
“And yet, many top OTs are heavy smokers and cannot quit. An OT VIII in Austria admits to being unable to quit smoking and yet claims to be OT VIII. He even sells e-cigs for a healthier option. And from all counts he’s a great guy.
Forget picking up pencils with the mind, these OTs cannot even change their own preferences or choose to override them with free WILL POWER.
And that IS the problem.
Free Will means FREE WILL POWER.
And if a Thetan were running a meat body, you would think it could choose to laugh during torture. Or just shut down it’s acceptance of pain. Or get hooked on crack and quit just for fun.
Or just say no to the emotional madness caused by a brain tumor and choose NOT to kill his family or over a dozen strangers from the Tower at the University of Texas. “
kg – thank you for clearing up your definition. I do not agree with your definition.
I note with interest that you have altered the words being defined, changing it from “free will” to “free will power.” Then you defined absolute power of action / manifestation. Then you shifted to the abilities of OTs, as if proving that an OT does not have absolute power of action per your definition, then somehow your definition is correct. WTF does the action / behavior of some person who says he is an OT have to do with the discussion of the definition of free will?
Sure. After you define the free will relationship between a Thetan and a meat body. How would you tell between a free will Thetan running a meat body and Roy from Bladerunner? If there is no difference then why would one study how to rehab a Thetan?
Let me get this straight – you want to know the difference between a purely fictional movie character and the people who wrote the movie, filmed the movie, acted in the movie and finally went and saw the movie?
You guys don’t like my definition, because it it falsifiable and ties free will to the physical universe and an eternal being within that being’s chosen body and the choices being made within that body.
A FALSIFIABLE DEFINITION WHICH I NERF COMPLETELY.
Geir has no definition of Free Will in his article. He doesn’t define the being or the way a being chooses and both would have to be done for free will to be understood.
He places free will as “unprovable” in our universe.
He states that free will can make changes in our physical universe even if only on a small level like the Butterfly Effect, but by using “potential” makes his claim moot because as he states there is no way to know for sure if free will caused something or failed to cause something.
Free Will, if it exists according to my falsifiable definition, would be the most powerful thing in the Universe run by the most powerful beings in the universe. And yet, the Buddha never toured around all the torture chambers to get a good laugh while they tried to get him to groan.
If “free will” is a potential, then nobody on the earth has a Free Will Stat of 19 on a twenty sided die as far torture goes. We top out at a stat around 5.
But note: there is no way to prove this stat is caused by free will according to Geir.
The famous Buddhist Monk Matthieu Ricard, the happiest man in the world according to Science, would be reduced to misery within 6 months of severe torture and sleep deprivation.
So, there is no REAL free will in this universe according to my wonderfully falsifiable definition. But since you guys don’t HAVE a definition, then you can rest in your belief that you may be right by saying we can’t prove it false or true.
MY SIMPLER FALSIFIABLE DEFINITION: “Free will is the ability of an eternal soul to CHOOSE and the POWER to enforce that CHOICE within the body it inhabits.”
EXAMPLE:
BRAIN TUMOR GUY: “My immortal spirit chooses to not listen to my raging impulses to kill my family. It’s choosing to not have my body use my fingers on a gun for 48 hours.”
That there definition FAILS among guys with tumors in their heads. But at least it says what free will is and fails honestly. Geir never states it. My guess is that it will go like this …
You have so misunderstood my article. Go to cramming.
Your previous comment contains such a blatant logical fallacy that it should be easily spotted. Please tell me which fallacy it is.
Glove is still on the ground.
Geir, I’m tire of your faux Socratic method.
It’s condescending.
Here ONE MORE TIME LET ME QUOTE YOUR ARTICLE:
“As free will lies outside the physical universe and acts as an external influence, it cannot be directly proven or disproved in and by the physical universe. ANY PROOF CAN ONLY BE CIRCUMSTANTIAL. The weakness of this theory is that it can not be proven to those who will accept only direct physical proof of a phenomena.”
It can be looked at in the frame of reference of a game. Any game has freedoms and barriers, by definition. Obviously, if there were a “game” with nothing but barriers at every turn, there would be no way to “move” except by being pushed around by all the forces that be – whether free will existed or not. But assuming a spirit in a meat body actually did have free will – WITHIN certain barriers, those of the physical universe including the restrictions of a body, as well as the barriers of the mind, the choices would only be limited by those particular barriers – but one could still choose from the remaining options.
Take as an analogy a person overpoweringly locked up in a room who is prevented by the walls or whatever barriers from moving out of or outside of the room. But with no barriers inside the room there would still be every option of movement within it – now barred only by the barriers in his mind. But, again in the frame of reference of a game, the mind barriers wouldn’t be absolute either and the mind could be seen as a kind of room too – i.e. within certain limits, the “room” of one’s mind, there are choices.
In other words, if there existed something less than total barriers of the physical universe or less than total barriers of the mind, there could be “room” for free will and choice.
There seems to be two separate questions – is there free will and are there total barriers. If there are total barriers free will could still exist, or not, but it wouldn’t matter.
And then my self CREATES another version of me by using DIFFERENT MATH. Kind of like how you code “Myst” for a Playstation different than you do for a PC. Or like how Coffee Cuppers make the same taste of coffee out of different types of beans.
And then hit “Print” on the hacked teleporter and I create a me from code different from my own.
So that would be an example if we ever get advanced enough.
Perhaps the etymology of the words free and will can offer some insight:
will (v.)
O.E. *willan, wyllan “to wish, desire, want” (past tense wolde), from P.Gmc. *welljan (cf. O.S. willian, O.N. vilja, O.Fris. willa, Du. willen, O.H.G. wellan, Ger. wollen, Goth. wiljan “to will, wish, desire,” Goth. waljan “to choose”), from PIE *wel-/*wol- “be pleasing” (cf. Skt. vrnoti “chooses, prefers,” varyah “to be chosen, eligible, excellent,” varanam “choosing;” Avestan verenav- “to wish, will, choose;” Gk. elpis “hope;” L. volo, velle “to wish, will, desire;” O.C.S. voljo, voliti “to will,” veljo, veleti “to command;” Lith. velyti “to wish, favor,” pa-vel-mi “I will,” viliuos “I hope;” Welsh gwell “better”). Cf. also O.E. wel “well,” lit. “according to one’s wish;” wela “well-being, riches.” The use as a future auxiliary was already developing in O.E. The implication of intention or volition distinguishes it from shall, which expresses or implies obligation or necessity. Contracted forms, especially after pronouns, began to appear 16c., as in sheele for “she will.” The form with an apostrophe is from 17c.
intend (v.)
c.1300, “direct one’s attention to,” from O.Fr. entendre, intendre “to direct one’s attention” (in Modern French principally “to hear”), from L. intendere “turn one’s attention, strain,” lit. “stretch out, extend,” from in- “toward” (see in- (2)) + tendere “to stretch” (see tenet). Sense of “have as a plan” (late 14c.) was present in Latin. A Germanic word for this was ettle, from O.N. ætla “to think, conjecture, propose,” from P.Gmc. *ahta “consideration, attention” (cf. O.E. eaht, Ger. acht). Intended (n.) “one’s intended husband or wife” is from 1767.
volition
1610s, from Fr. volition (16c.), from M.L. volitionem (nom. volitio) “will, volition,” from L. stem (as in volo “I wish”) of velle “to wish,” from PIE *wel-/*wol- “be pleasing”
free (v.)
O.E. freogan “to free, liberate, manumit,” also “to love, think of lovingly, honor,” from freo (see free (adj.)). Cf. O.Fris. fria “to make free;” O.S. friohan “to court, woo;” Ger. befreien “to free,” freien “to woo;” O.N. frja “to love;” Goth. frijon “to love.” Related: Freed; freeing.
free (adj.)
O.E. freo “free, exempt from, not in bondage,” also “noble; joyful,” from P.Gmc. *frijaz (cf. O.Fris. fri, O.S., O.H.G. vri, Ger. frei, Du. vrij, Goth. freis “free”), from PIE *prijos “dear, beloved,” from base *pri- “to love” (cf. Skt. priyah “own, dear, beloved,” priyate “loves;” O.C.S. prijati “to help,” prijatelji “friend;” Welsh rhydd “free”). The adverb is from O.E. freon, freogan “to free, love.”
The primary sense seems to have been “beloved, friend, to love;” which in some languages (notably Germanic and Celtic) developed also a sense of “free,” perhaps from the terms “beloved” or “friend” being applied to the free members of one’s clan (as opposed to slaves, cf. L. liberi, meaning both “free” and “children”). Cf. Goth. frijon “to love;” O.E. freod “affection, friendship,” friga “love,” friðu “peace;” O.N. friðr, Ger. Friede “peace;” O.E. freo “wife;” O.N. Frigg “wife of Odin,” lit. “beloved” or “loving;” M.L.G. vrien “to take to wife, Du. vrijen, Ger. freien “to woo.”
Of nations, “not subject to foreign rule or to despotism,” it is recorded from late 14c. (Free world “non-communist nations” attested from 1950.) Sense of “given without cost” is 1580s, from notion of “free of cost.” Free lunch, originally offered in bars to draw in business, by 1850, Amer.Eng. Free pass on railways, etc., attested by 1850. Free speech in Britain used of a privilege in Parliament since the time of Henry VIII. In U.S., as a civil right, it became a prominent phrase in the debates over the Gag Rule (1836). Free enterprise recorded from 1890; free trade is from 1823. Free will is from early 13c. Free association in psychology is from 1899. Free love “sexual liberation” attested from 1822. Free range (adj.) is attested by 1960. Free and easy “unrestrained” is from 1690s.
I’ve studied my own actions very thoroughly over the last 10 years, both subjective and objective. One of the observations that I have made is that I cannot find a true now within the “concrete” manifestations of the physical universe. When I standing on the leading edge of time, where present becomes past, that infinitesimal dividing line between what was and what will be, stepping forward into the next reality, I find that in that infinitesimal yet somehow infinite delineation marker, I bring a host of past experiences (subjective and objective), a host of conjectured experiences, and an entire host of imagined futures. I find that perception is always of the past. In other words, I perceive what is already created.
Ten days ago, I considered the possibility of going to a movie. In considering that I relied on prediction based on past events, a prediction that in ten days the world would still have a movie house in it. I based this on my memory of past events. Then I considered the possible pleasures offered by the movie trailer, imagining how it might be and deciding if the possibility of pleasure was strong enough to bother to go to the movie. Weirdly, I did an advance preview. And that was based on my memory of seemingly similar movies. I then set a marker (a marker?????) to remember to go to the movie on the day it came out. I built an entire future 10 days previous out of past remembrances and created / imagined possibilities. Then I watched as the experience unfolded. I left entire segments of the future unconsidered or only vaguely outlined, setting up instead interactions with others with which to plush out unconsidered territory.
The only now I can find in this sequence is the point just before I begin considering, a point that is null, a null that I fill with imagined, perceived and experienced THINGS.
Currently it appears to me that the collection consisting my imagination, consideration and memory is every bit as real than the physical universe. It just doesn’t have mass that is subject to gravity and until it is apprehended by another it isn’t a consensus – or is it?
Perhaps the phrase “thoughts are things” is an absolute? And if the physical universe and thoughts are all things, then perhaps the only difference between them is that one or more of us can see a now that apparently is consistent. I say apparently, because I really don’t know what you see / experience even as we agree, yes, that was a great movie!
Have you found any other approaches that might be helpful in expanding my examination of this process? Have you found anything along this line yourself?
Regarding the instant of creation, I have been working in the reduction of mind (what you properly refer to as the host of past experiences, conjectured experiences and imagined futures) to zero, no anticipation, no resistance, that has given me a feeling like I´m gliding trough MEST, advancing with very little effort.
If I were to say this approach improved my control over MEST I would be lying, it is a very small test, and would be on the side of “being cause by being effect” or something like that which does not make a good case in favor of “free will”,
Maybe what did happen was that for the first time in my life, I was not presenting resistance to the flow of life, sort of a negative gain.
What seems clear is that achieving free will in the mest universe would mean enforcing it on everyone else or everybody becoming one, a no games condition.
I too have experienced this gliding effect -for me, it feels as if I am completely motionless in the midst of forms that continually shift / coalesce around me.
I also experienced an awareness of this as “being cause by being effect.”
Simultaneously I experienced an awareness of “being effect by being cause” with the cause-point occurring within that seemingly infinitesimal time in which I seem to not be anything at all. I am briefly (yet vividly) aware that I am not in the time stream (language falls apart here as an adequate descriptor.) And in that state I find myself generating, but not out of a nexus of past.
I have been experimenting with that and what I find is that if I imagine / expect / conceive of little things while in that state, they routinely appear in my life – sometimes within hours, often within a few days. It has been fascinating and I find myself shrinking from doing it much, like I am worried about consequences. The lag has become shorter and shorter. I have found that I must be in the state of gliding and the marker seems to be a state of joy. I think of it as the state of the joy of creating for lack of better description.
Based on the discussions on this thread, unlimited free will in the form of absolute power of manifestation would indeed have to take the form of a no games condition, perhaps even an exit from the game. Perhaps that is exactly what happens, An exit from the game. I have a niggling suspicion that this may be at the bottom of my worrying about consequences.
Yes, I have experienced those things also, but I can also tell you are way ahead of me. (My description of it was very fuzzy, and yours is quite precise). This seems to be a path which is walkable, real and magical at the same time.
Joy of creating is the best words can do, and the vanishment of ego and selfishness.
Cause and effect, time and space become secondary.
And I also feel that anxiety you mention: The point of creation is possibly also the exit from the game.
One can almost see the outside then the viewpoint vanishes, just when starting to look at an infinite number of absolutes………
I would dare saying the point of creating is the only one which lies just outside the cage.
I know I´m not making much sense Maria, I´m kind of experiencing a chaotic clash with the unknown, and things haven´t settled, but I´m working on the idea that the material universe is made up of relatives, and ourselves are made of absolutes, something along this line:
The material universe seems to be made of motion, and motion within motion, and so on, with no basic particles at the origin of all that motion being observed so far, or a basic frame sustaining it all.
In our effort to know, the best we have been able do do, is discover patterns of motion, and patterns within patterns.
Each piece of knowledge we have, each datum, consists of a fixed frame of motion which shows a pattern.
The best description of “ourselves” or consciousness I have found, is of an absolute static making fixed frames of motion, in a process of reach and withdraw, but, the moment it becomes inmersed in motion, and without an outer frame of reference, as each pattern has an appearance of no motion, the true static can become identified with it and becomes trapped, fixed in it, solidified:
That pattern has turned into a stable datum, a basic frame of reference, a false static, a point from which everything else will be observed and structured into relative patterns.
I am kind of chuckling reading your last post because you seem to be experiencing a similar bafflement to me – for me its kind of seeing something out of the corner of your eye or having a memory or idea just slightly out of reach – I can almost get it – its just right there!! But it slips away just as I grasp it.
Sometimes I have this odd notion that there’s really just a bunch of white noise like what you see on a T.V. that isn’t tuned to a station. Even a sound like that. There is no form or meaning, just noise. And then the meaning is applied over it and voila! it gains definition, but its really just noise reflecting a superimposition of meaning – color, emotion, form, weight and so on, through the entire spectrum of differentiation. Kind of like a super sophisticated 3D etch-a-sketch.
And along with that this notion that the physical world could be likened to a sponge (not a dead sponge, a live one) and this absolute permeates every nook and cranny of the sponge, rather like saturating it. The sponge is contained, immersed, completely saturated. It lives in it. It takes its life from it, all meaning from it, it takes it in and breaths it out. Its not a truly satisfactory analogy but it is better than thinking of a “separateness.”
And yes, I have been considering absolutes. It is very clear to me that the physical world is totally relative, in process constantly and in a state of constant flux. It is also clear to me that it is what has come to pass.
“… its kind of seeing something out of the corner of your eye or having a memory or idea just slightly out of reach – I can almost get it – its just right there!! But it slips away just as I grasp it. ”
Ah, this is so nice, “… just right there”, it reminds me so of that “Somebody Else’s Problem”-phenomena in the HitchHiker’s Guide … 😀
You can’t see if you look at it directly, you have catch in the corner of your eye, but you always kind of know, it’s just right there. 😀
“Sometimes I have this odd notion that there’s really just a bunch of white noise like what you see on a T.V. that isn’t tuned to a station. Even a sound like that. There is no form or meaning, just noise. And then the meaning is applied over it and voila! it gains definition, but its really just noise reflecting a superimposition of meaning – color, emotion, form, weight and so on, through the entire spectrum of differentiation. Kind of like a super sophisticated 3D etch-a-sketch.”
Yeah mee too ABSOLUTELY!(He, he)…….. Words fail miserably here, it has the appearance of chaos, but I guess that is how the “universe of infinite probabilities” or the “infinite amount of (absolute?) universes” or the “multiverse” would be, and we are looking only at a small, instant frame of it…….or creating(collapsing?) an instant frame of it………
Guess I´m just looking at this chaos and trying to extract a meaning……..
Interesting how this apparent contradiction occurs:
To get in contact with this unharmonic “chaos” is only possible through moving into very fine harmonics….. undisturbed looking…. aestetics….. a state of Joy of creation……
With yet another apparent contradiction: abandon of self…. let go of…. everything….
and, yet, surprisingly, still remain “here” somehow
Contradictions within contradictions….
It is not possible to get there when one tries (or needs) to mantain feet on a fixed base, a stable datum, a coherent mind…. a logic structure… guess that is the price to pay for endless fun,
In my case, it was like being able to be crazy and completely serene at the same time!
Of course, not possible to know if I was already crazy Ha ha ha!
Absolutes, being what they are, don´t have an outer side, by definition, they just embrace everything and all… right?
Something I still misunderstand here: The physical universe is filled with apparent absolutes, every fixed pattern, every law of phisics, appears to be absolute within its own realm of action, but then, when we look at it from a bigger frame of reference it becomes relative…
Logic is always relative, have to focus on at least two different things to compare, needs a frame of reference, a stable datum, a starting point.
Could it possibly be that…..
Absolute perfection, if looked at through a mind, (and not being possible to include it inside any frame of reference) can only be perceived as chaos?
What a great comm cycle between Maria and Rafael. I too experience this gliding effect. My interpretation of this is the machine at its best and most efficient operating for a moment in calm and serene waters without counter effort. Hands off the wheel and gliding straight and true — the essence of perfect illusion.
But meditate for a time — or call it confronting — on the untuned television screen and after a time I begin to see both a pattern to the snow and a slowing until the “frames” begin to show up in the vertical and horizontal hold.
In sleep I can flick the channels and not move but quantum leap from channel to channel. And I think that motion including the motion of time is the grandest and most perfectly crafted illusion of all.
I tend to agree with your comment that free-will is creative, but the rest of it “Only for any universe in which the being is able to create and uncreate knowingly and at will, with no limits. That would include the complete creation and vanishment of such universe, too.” — Not so much.
Referring to Marildi’s comment regarding “games,” it seems to me obvious that there is free-will within a defined field of play. The freedoms are lain out and within that framework, one has free-will. Playing a board game one has free-will within parameters, and so forth. This seems free-will to me to be able to move the chess pieces; when it is my turn, and according to rules (which I freely agreed to.)
I tend to think that the rules of the game “balance the free will” so that everybody can have some. It would be not much fun to play with someone or others who executed completely free-will. On the other hand, we routinely consent to curb excess free-will in order to play a game.
My epiphany writing this is that your statement seems consistent if we change, “,no limits.” to “within prescribed limits.” See? In this way, if someone wants to “take their ball and go home” they can.
Yes, I see your point Chris, you are framing it in the MEST universe, inside of which absolute free will is not attainable, but in this case I am taking a different approach, I guess I am also a Pythagorean by heart, and I was trying to make a mathematical statement, and I purposely stated it in an absolute way, but that would not be for the MEST universe, only for universes which the being is able to create and uncreate, knowingly.
You see, absolutes do not exist in the MEST universe, but they can exist in in our mind.
Each time we “think a thought”,we can create universes of our own in which we can exert absolute free will (creativity). As long as we retain our ability to make them appear and dissapear at will.
That is the beauty of the mind, and that is also the beauty of mathematical universes, because they can contain absolutes too, and in my view, that places them potentially above the MEST universe.
So, maybe a basic mistake here could be a confusion of universes, each instant in which we “look” at the physical universe, if we try to understand it in terms of absolute concepts we are doomed to fail.
Our universe seems to be inside the physical universe, as an effect of it. The moment we become certain that we can create it outside we become free.(Or crazy, I´m not yet completely sure which).
Fractals demonstrate to me the reality of universes within universes. It also demonstrates to me the potential to become fixated upon the kaleidoscopic entertainment that the automaticities contained within framework of the physical provide. It is addictive.
When we aren’t lazy, we create. Could it be that when we are lazy we are coasting inside and when we are creating we are pedaling from outside?
Hey Dude, You really don´t let language get in your way, do you?
If I ever write a book on Quantum Mechanics (probably not until next lifetime), I want you to be my editor, your description is terrific, I just love it.
Thanks Rafael. I think that’s the nicest compliment I ever received, “Hey dude, you really don’t let language get in your way, do you?” And with that I should retire from blogging forever as I will never improve upon this.
Right back at you. Your fresh points of view have given me several new things to consider. I especially appreciate your earlier synopsis of Vinay’s KHTK. Very astute and concise.
When LRH said, “It’s alright to have an open mind, so long as the openness doesn’t consist only of holes.” I took this to heart and saved and savored this little implant of false data/truism for the past ever so many years.
It is embarrassing to me to recognize my own bias against “open-mindedness” when it is being so very well described by so many of you on this thread.
Free will seems contextual for every frame of reference.
It seems to me there’s no logical argument for “free will” which requires direct evidence. Arguments in favor of “determinism” seem stretched beyond reason if we consider the observation required for quantum physics to work.
Marildi’s example using “games” seems apt to me. Games by definition collar free will. Can Marildi make a rock so big that she can’t pick it up? If she has free will, she can. Saying she can’t pick up the rock and so therefore has no free will is a fallacy. This is the context in which free will vs. determinism is being argued and therefore direct evidence is not available. Harnessing free will to sweeping of standards of power, glory, freedom, whatever which have to be met to prove it exists are moot without a corresponding context.
Tor Ivar Nilsen
2011-10-27 at 21:46
Hmm, am I right in thinking that LRH-statement are kind of similar to my “Empty- vs Open-mind”-quote ?
Hey Tor,
Yes, same subject, but opposite effect. LRH’s statement was paving the road for his “Keeping Scientology Working” fascism. Open mindedness to him in the context of establishing the Churches of Scientology was something to be shunned. LRH said many “right things” about freedom and then went on to define freedoms so that we could “know that closing our minds to these freedoms” was the correct way of acting.
My epiphany was that open-mindedness in the context of this thread requires lots of active energetic looking and evaluating of data. Like the way I thought before I became a Scientologist.
Not having any personal experiences with Sci or CoS, I cannot really comment on that specifically, but I have seen and experienced the same close-mindedness in other religious, political and social groups.
Usually they all function the same way : “We maintain the truth, the whole truth, nothing but etc. …” and judge, manipulate and push people around accordingly.
A norwegian writer once said that : “When lawyers and theologians assemble, then there is trouble ahead” with ref’s from anything from the catholic church to the Stalin-processes.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Very well argued – Sharing!
Great video. It takes a lot of patience and a great deal of healthy rational “detachment” to analyze illogical arguments as thoroughly and accurately as the author does here.
so true.
Let’s look at the evidence Hubbard has presented for existence of a thetan or an operating thetan.
.
Or the evidence for the UNKNOWABLE.
Well, what WAS the evidence presented? I’ve assumed there was a hypothesis, maybe based on philosophical reasoning or intuition. Then it was tested on pc’s and evidence was found to support it.. But is there specific data about this and where is that data to be found?
p.s. There’s also the apparent evidence of a “single point source”:
“…an early 1950’s experiment at a prominent American university to measure energy fields surrounding the human body. If their “man from mud” theories were correct, those fields would emanate from individual cells. Yet they did not. The energy had a mysterious single point source. And while those results were hastily swept under a scientific carpet, their significance was not lost on one man.” (from promo for “Source of Life Energy” lecture series)
Interesting. I may have to work this in.
This sounds like a good project for you, Vin.
I believe there are about 3,000 hours of recorded lectures by LRH. If you start now and listen to just 2 lectures a day, you can get through them all in just over 4 years, 1 month, 1 week, and 3 days – or so,
Be sure to take notes on any section you come across relevant to your interest in evidence for the existence of a thetan or thetans.
Report back to us when you’re done.
Start.
This individual has done a LOT of amazing videos. His voice is disarming and his lucid descriptions just make my mind coo “Ahhhhhh … so THAT’S what reason sounds like … “
me too.
I think this is the same guy. Again. it screams “Isn’t this weird, wacky journey marvelous?”
Nope. I don’t think they are the same guy.
But all his videos are attached to this “This Remarkable Thing” on the corresponding YouTube channel. Enjoy!
Hi kg,
This is an extremely well done video but to me it seemed slanted, like propaganda. On the one hand it movingly appeals in various ways to our highest instincts and ideals and then juxtaposes all that with this slant, near the end: “Maybe you have to let go of the promise of immortality to truly feel alive here and now.”
And after that, the screen displays a Richard Feynman quote, which seems to imply his alignment with the above viewpoint. But I think it’s out of context if you consider the following excerpt (from the same pamphlet by Richard Poll that I quoted in my other comment today):
“The great strength of the powerful materialists who control orthodox scientific thinking is that they are banking on the fact that most people are not making an effort to understand even basic subatomic physics… Read Professor Richard Feynman’s layman’s guide to subatomic physics obtainable from bookshops and the library – QED. Once people have read the physicists’ and rationalists’ case explaining so-called paranormal phenomena they automatically become immune from falling for any supernatural absurdities. Never again will the masses fall under the spell of priestcraft. Never again will people be fooled by pseudo-scientists who are guilty of suppressing uncomfortable discoveries in physics solely to keep their power structures intact.”
Reading his whole article (or maybe just the other excerpts I quoted in my other comment) it’s clear that the above is in the context of describing how quantum physics explains scientifically the so-called “paranormal” – and that we do not die but live on after body death. 🙂
BTW, I also noted that this video seems to have been produced in Britain (if the accent of the narrator means anything) and the other one you posted in a previous thread – to do with Dr. Susan Blackmore and the idea that the brain knows our decision 7 seconds before we know it – was apparently produced in Britain too. And according to this article I’ve been quoting, Dr. Blackmore speaks for the vested-interest science establishment.
(Hey…maybe the Brits are trying to get back control of the colonies – the land of the free! ;-))
@Marildi
“Reading his whole article (or maybe just the other excerpts I quoted in my other comment) it’s clear that the above is in the context of describing how quantum physics explains scientifically the so-called “paranormal” – and that we do not die but live on after body death.”
Well, I hope you are right! Really, I do! Being a spiritual being that lives forever would be AWESOME. Imagine the freedom! The wisdom! The power of postulation!
It would so-so-so NOT SUCK!
But … you again are quoting references instead of describing or siting evidences. Show me evidence, not articles. I saw an article the other day ON THE HUFFINGTON POST FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! If I quote this article, have I provided evidence that Bigfoot exists?
No. But here goes:
“Scientists are 99% Sure They Have Found the Yeti.”
K. I read the article. SAME OLD BIGFOOT BULLSHIT. They found footprints. Hair samples. Blurry photographs.
Let me tell ya, if there really is an OT VIII in the planet IT’S FREAKING BIGFOOT!
Nobody can catch that guy! What a game he is playing with us human suckers!
But … I … um …
well …
I don’t believe in Bigfoot till he is either safe in a Zoo, mounted above a fireplace or is holding a meeting with the United Nations to negotiate a land deal to live free from us stupid humans.
You are so funny!
I wrote a post recently where I mentioned some of the good writers who post here. How could I forget about you! Besides having a very large “data base” of information, you are probably the most wildly imaginative one of all. Certainly unique, definitely an original. Thank you for your “creations.” 🙂
This is why I have always been such a big fan of “Harry and the Hendersons.”
I’ve been considering some ideas that may be of interest on this thread:
Determinism: any person, at any given time, has one and only one course of action open to him, and no choice whatsoever. Rephrased – under determinism, what can be done is done, whatever was not done simply could not be done.
Free will: any person, at any given time, has more than one course of action open to him, and is always in the process of choosing a particular course of action. Free will does not have to be unlimited in scope or action to exist. It only has to be the corollary of determinism where there is no choice made at all, for there is no choice possible.
Integrity: With respect to the free will versus determinism issue, we assume that the end-goal is discovering the truth, free of bias or mistaken ideas, with a commitment to renouncing mistakes and bias immediately upon detection. This appears to be the ideal presented in the video.
Course of action: Acceptance of a particular idea or set of beliefs, resulting in a particular state of mind with a resultant set of choices resulting in particular actions/responses.
To have an open mind at all, per the concepts examined in this video, it seems to me that one must assume the existence of free will, free will being evidenced in the primary assumption that there can be a truth at all and that one SHOULD subscribe to that truth immediately when it is detected. “Should” immediately implies that one “can” do what should be done. If one can do what one should do, then a choice is being made. Under determinism, there is no choice to be made because no choices are possible.
Good. Very good.
Now to have any purpose or any discussion or an aspirations at all, one must assume the existence of free will.
This has been kind of a weird thread for me. I was totally grooving on the discussion of open-mindedness but the track jump to free-will is like jumping back on the merry-go-round.
I liked your article – thought your article on free will was one of the best I’ve ever read. But on the other hand, aside from simply stating one’s opinion, the topic of free will is like, “well, if you have to ask, . . . ” Where does it go? It’s not something which responds to arguing very well since the metaphysicist says there is the wild variable and the determinist simply says that choices are bouncing the only way they could have bounced. Everyone that I know anything about operates as if there is free will NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY about the gods or whatever. Is this your experience?
Yes. It is a tricky subject for discussion. That may have pushed my latest blog post forward a day or two (although the post was initially inspired by Salve’s comment on me asking for possible subjects a couple of weeks ago).
Hi Chris – thanks for your acknowledgment of what I wrote – but I have to confess that it is the result of a great deal of study and research into both science and philosophy – call it a “book review” of sorts.
It has been my experience that everyone I know operates as if there is free will no matter what they say, regardless of any other beliefs they may assert.
“…free will being evidenced in the primary assumption that there can be a truth at all and that one should subscribe to that truth immediately when it is detected.”
I call that beating science within the rules of their own game. And it seems to me any other viewpoint would result in apathy or anxiety. Hurray for free will! 🙂
I was so rooting you on with your framework of free-will in games because I thought that pretty much nailed it, but this comment? I don’t follow how this is beating science and why would apathy and anxiety result from determinism? If you want to think about it in terms of emotion, determinism would result in a calming effect by removing grand motives like evil from the world. Wouldn’t it?
Don’t the theists routinely acquiesce to God’s will – another form of determinism? Generally speaking I wouldn’t say that one’s view of the source of creation categorizes them into the category of requiring drugs to function… haha
See latest blog post.
Looks like Maria answered the main question – in a nutshell, it’s all in the meaning of the word “should,” which implies choice. And what I meant by “beating scientists at their own game” is that the idea of “should” is key to their own basic assumption or basis of operation, i.e. that a scientist “should” be (open mindedly) in search of and subscribe to truth.
Your last paragraph was funny! And I see what you mean about a calming effect. But at the time I wrote my comment I was thinking that I would feel sort of schizophrenic if I believed that my thoughts and actions weren’t mine – hence “anxiety.” Right now thinking about it, that seems a little “theoretical” (LOL).
And thanks for rooting for my games conception. 🙂
Nice ! 🙂
In all creation, for me free will is the most beautifully crafted.
Hmm, from how I actually read me, the idea of an open mind is absurd IF there is not free will.
I agree with that 😀
You also say “Free will does not have to be unlimited in scope or action to exist. It only has to be the corollary of determinism where there is no choice made at all,”
I guess one could cut down the last line to
“It only has to be the corollary of determinism where there is no choice at all,”
Removing the verb “made” shouldn’t affect anything as
if determinism, then no choice => no choice can be made …
Am I aligned ?
I’d say so. And that would be a workable definition.
Maria: Queen.
Hi Tor – in answer to your question – am I aligned? It sure seems that way to me and I like your wording change too!
There’s nothing wrong with your very good ideas about determinism vs free will except how would you prove which was which? Both are self fulfilling?
I lost you when you started writing about integrity. Help me understand how the word “should” fits in?
Hi Chris: They are both working definitions, the most concise definitions I could come up with as summaries. They were derived from my religious and philosophical studies of determinism and free will outlined by a tremendous number of philosophers over many centuries. My attempt to simplify a subject on which tomes and tomes have been written.
After I watched the video, I understood that there could be no open mindedness of science without the ability to choose / select lines of thought or exploration. As I see it, there has to be an ability to make a choice among alternative choices. Science experiments and deliberates based on choices made, however limited the alternatives may be.
The definition of determinism denies any possibility of choice. Yet, on the same breath, science urges that one SHOULD immediately discard a particular choice when it is found to be incorrect. SHOULD implies the existence of choices. If I tell you that you SHOULD HAVE done something, it is an assertion that you had an alternative and you chose / selected the wrong alternative.
I think that it is the very existence of alternative choices that enables free will. Possibilities. Probabilities. And their relative value. And value is judgment and judgment is a choice made between alternatives.
If there is no SHOULD then there is no choice.
And you are correct.
Maria, IMHO determinism is not confined to only one output. One view is that every choice in infinite universes exists at once so in infinite universes it feels like free will. In this view it’s really just every potential experiencing it’s given space/time reality.
This is the ManyWolds view. I contest that it could be called determinism in the truest sense where an outcome is determined from previous outcomes – because per this view it isn’t (rather the opposite). It is an effort to explain QM. I lean toward labeling ManyWorlds as unscientific, at least in several of its forms, since it seems unfalsifiable much like a theory stating that everything was created yesterday.
I understand and agree with your point but feel a natural bias in favor of Many Worlds.
In expressing your opinion, you have expressed your choice. IMHO, an individual can choose to believe in a single universe, or multiple universes, or a completely illusory universe, or no universe at all. Since the essence / construct / explanation of every one of these is based on theories, it seems to me that it comes down to what makes sense to the individual. what aligns with the individual’s already chosen beliefs/theories or who makes the most compelling argument / inferences / opportunities, etc. for the individual. Or the choice could simply be based on what is in the individual’s projected best interests – as an example, what will obtain the most funding or protect a coveted position or perhaps allow another’s free will to prevail.
Even with the choice of multiple universes, scientific integrity (or just integrity in general) requires that when an individual discovers that a conclusion is incorrect in multiple universes, it must be discarded immediately in favor of the truer conclusion. This is still a demonstration of the event of making a choice. Within multiple universes the choices would be multiple even if they are all the same choice. Or an individual can choose to ignore proof, rationality, or even common sense, choosing a conclusion that cannot be proven and thus choose NOT to subscribe to scientific open mindedness. (I think some people actually pride themselves on being “different.”)
It appears that this happens frequently enough for the author to take note of it and choose to produce a video on the subject. Right or wrong, choices are being made by individuals. Free will isn’t “true” will or “right” will, and free will assumes that one can be wrong and can choose to hold a course of action of asserted (rather than proven or even consensus) belief or conclusion. Its a matter of choice.
IMHO, free will is in the choice. Apparent, true, right, wrong, limited or not there is still a choosing going on. It seems to me that exercising free will with integrity is a choice as well, a choice to attempt to subscribe to free will with integrity. IMHO, free will can be extended by deliberately choosing to exercise free will. I choose to explore it with integrity as best I can. How far it can be extended is an unknown I am presently exploring. Perhaps there is an absolute will that does result in absolute action anywhere, anytime. But it seems to me that if that exists for me, that means it exists for you as well and if it is absolute for both of us, then it seems to me that there would be no division / separateness between you and me. Or maybe my choices ripple into yours and vice-versa to the nth to the nth exponent and so we are choosing together and maybe I can’t make a choice without you and you and you and me and me and me at all. Maybe YOU and YOU and YOU are my multiple universes and it is all just one universe after all. And maybe that’s why we all work so hard to get the other to subscribe to our CHOSEN view as we attempt to climb to the top of the heap and cry: I’m the King of the Castle! But of course this is all speculation on my part, views I choose to examine.
I have absolutely no disagreement with anything in the OP video or with scientific methods at all. But I’ve been wondering why it is that even though there seems to be so much evidence of such things as Near Death Experiences and Past Lives, that these are still not accepted as valid by science. So I decided to see what I could find on the internet and googled “proof of the soul.” I found a very relevant article on a British website that seems to answer my question, even tying in quantum physics! “THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH,” by Michael Roll. http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof1.html
Here are some excerpts:
“There are two expert opinions as to what so-called paranormal phenomena are, but in this ‘free’ country the British people are only allowed access to the explanation that is politically correct…
“The parapsychologist Dr. Susan Blackmore has been given complete freedom of every radio and television programme that is meant to be examining the subject. This is because she is the establishment mouthpiece and…protects the scientific establishment’s adopted stance, which only gives a materialistic model of the universe. Professor J. Wheeler, a top physicist, stated in 1994 that acceptance of survival or paranormal phenomena would destroy the basis of science as taught in our universities…
“We have had the experimental proof of survival after death ever since Sir William Crookes published the results of his experiments in the leading scientific journal of his day – The Quarterly Journal of Science – in 1874. These were repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions. International teams of scientists then repeated the experiments and obtained the same results. People who had once lived on earth came back and proved to these scientific teams that they had conquered death and were still very much alive. This is what Professor Charles Richet, the French Nobel Laureate for medical science, said about the experiments: ‘There is ample proof that experimental materialisations should take definite rank as a scientific fact’…
“Read Professor Richard Feynman’s layman’s guide to subatomic physics obtainable from bookshops and the library – QED. Once people have read the physicists’ and rationalists’ case explaining so-called paranormal phenomena they automatically become immune from falling for any supernatural absurdities. Never again will the masses fall under the spell of priestcraft. Never again will people be fooled by pseudo-scientists who are guilty of suppressing uncomfortable discoveries in physics solely to keep their power structures intact.”
Go marilidi!
I know, I’m on fire! (And you can call me marilidi any day of the week. ;-))
Yes, Susan Blackmore is a favorite of the BBC who in my opinion are biased in favour of atheism (because they see it as pro-science and they believe science (sociology, psychology) backs up their Left-wing views). The BBC has huge influence in UK through tv and radio and around the world
That they “see” it as pro-science may just mean they’ve been inculcated into the “science cult” by the powers that be.
Oh, and thanks for reminding me. I forgot to mention that the author stated his article was censored in Great Britain. Cult think!
K. I read the article Marildi. If you have evidence against the meat hypothesis or evidence FOR free will and/or a real spirit body, SHOW AND/OR DESCRIBE THE EVIDENCE ITSELF not the references TO the EVIDENCE.
The article says what you say … BUT … NO … SCIENTIFIC … DATA.
It lists TONS of things to Google as well as old, obscure books that supposedly contain the data and some from almost a hundred years ago.
Hmm. I know where this is going.
I’ve seen this before and have run this wild goose chase dozens of times in my life to find NO PROTOCOLS WILL APPEAR THAT FALSIFY THE MEAT HYPOTHESIS OR PROVIDE REAL EVIDENCE FOR FREE WILL OR A SPIRIT BODY.
It is going to eventually lead to a writer that claims an experiment was done and NONE OF THE PROTOCOLS OR DATA ON HOW TO REPRODUCE IT WILL EXIST. But I will read tons of rhetoric about how science is ignoring this amazing research!
Okay. Sure.
IF SOMEONE WOULD ACTUALLY POST THESE EXPERIMENTS AND PROTOCOLS SO I CAN DO THEM MYSELF, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
((LAUGHS OUT LOUD CUZ THAT’S NOT GONNA HAPPEN))
Here, let me demonstrate. Watch “The Quantum Activist.” It’s done by a respected Quantum Physicist.
Here is the link. http://www.quantumactivist.com/
It’s on Netflix. It’s on iTunes. You can find it.
Now. In it, there is supposedly an actual experiment where something TRULY AMAZING is occurring in Mexico. I won’t say WHAT IT IS cuz of spoilers.
It will blow your mind. I was stunned and piqued immediately into emails and requests for more data on the experiment.
Now just try to get the protocols and data from this famous Mexican Scientist! If you do, you did better than I AND I REALLY FUCKING TRIED. I haven’t looked in over a year, but the last I tried, all my requests and searching have met only silence.
Protocols please!
Let’s see… you believe you are a meat body, which seems to be composed of a vast, vast number of particles, somehow all hanging together in a cohesive unit through forces which cannot be seen but can be inferred from evidence that is seen with one or more meat bodies (bodies that filter out all elements/forces outside of their optimum spectrum of experience) but can be detected with instruments that can be used by a meat body to identify something in a way that the meat body can perceive… and that detection means… but no meat body can be really sure about that anyway because all too often that meaning is found to be inaccurate AGAIN!!!!! and one must subscribe to another meaning on the hope that this new one will be better… CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE CHOOSE…
From the meat body perspective, because you (and other meat bodies too!) have not PERSONALLY experienced any other mode of existence, all other modes must be dismissed because you have not PERSONALLY experienced it and others are required to somehow cause you to experience their experience or admit to the “great meat god of the universe” that their choices were wrong, their own experiences invalid, and everything they see is an illusion, including their own perceptions, experiences and choices, i.e. free will. Failure to get it right means certain death and total extinction of all possibility of choice? No wait a minute! Failure isn’t really even an issue – meat bodies die. Period. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust, and one’s silly imaginings and ideas have no bearing on anything anyway.
As far as choices go, it seems obvious to me that you personally make them continually, constantly, and present them with great fervor, including an apparent belief in your own righteousness with every post you make on this blog. But I may have misread all this and perhaps it is truly irrelevant anyway, since you are meat and we are meat and meat does not have free will (however limited free will may be) and you and we are only doing what can be done anyway. And it somehow follows that all we can do is accept the “real evidence” presented by the “real” scientists of the world, who are bastions of truth and reality a la meat – they who have the “real” EVIDENCE so necessary to do what we must do anyway (except when they make mistakes!) but they made those mistakes because they couldn’t do anything else but make those mistakes so its all good anyway. Even more annoying, they won’t give me a pass to get into the CERN labs so I can verify what the hell they are on about.
An amazingly frustrating scenario!! Can’t say I like it much. With that said, I think I’ll kick back for a bit, go get a beer, munch on cheetos, relax and watch my favorite meat body football team on tv, and rest contented in the belief that if that’s what I am doing, then I am doing just exactly what I can do and I can’t do anything else but what I can do. (Heaves a sigh of relief!!) And what’s more – to hell with the health food enthusiasts and anti-tv people!! As meat, I will die. Its just a matter of when. So bottoms up!
🙂
Maria, you make me smile a huge smile. But now I don’t know which of your posts today is my all-time favorite. 😀
But …
If we are meat, we can learn to teach our meat with memes to SEE our ego delusion and let it go.
How would you live if you knew your life really didn’t matter and you really didn’t have free will?
Would you see such a life as a free gift? One with no bill to pay or reward to earn?
Why, your meat could learn to be free to love absolutely without risk. You could learn to try ANYTHING you wanted to because you would know as Steve Jobs said that, “You are already naked. There is no reason to not follow your heart.”
Perhaps the greatest words ever spoken. Jobs’ commencement speech was perhaps some of the best rhetoric spoken by an American IMHO.
Bottoms up? or Follow your heart?
Hmm … seems like a choice there … is it real or just a dream?
Donno. It is so beautiful though I really can’t stand it. And regardless, I am free to let it happen.
“…our meat…”
Who’s meat is it?
I guess the meat belongs to the dream it creates to see itself.
So, there is no owner? Or is there an owner?
There is a story of ownership.
That is the only thing I can factor out of the choices. We’re stories.
And a story can be made into words.
And words can be coded into numbers.
And any number has always been.
So our story has always been.
Can a story running in a wad of meat make other stories live? And can the other stories make the founding story live?
If so, what is that when these stories communicate? And when these stories create better homes for bigger stories WHAT IS HAPPENING?
We are co-creating the each others that have always been and yet never were.
Could you make a case for a particle that creates itself?
Could you make a case for a particle that creates itself?
A very good question Geir, and one that is definitely not answered in the meme construct.
“The thesis of this book is that what makes us different is our ability to imitate” (p. 3 – The Meme Machine by S. Blackmore)
This appears to be based squarely on an assertion that imitation is a natural and pervasive ability of human beings, an ability almost non-existent in animals.
This unique ability of human beings is posited as the reason why human beings have evolved culture and why animals (and lower life-forms by inference) have not evolved culture.
“Memes are habits, skills, songs, stories, or any other kind of information that is copied from person to person. Memes, like genes, are replicators. That is, they are information that is copied with variation and selection. Because only some of the variants survive, memes (and hence human cultures) evolve. Memes are copied by imitation, teaching and other methods, and they compete for space in our memories and for the chance to be copied again. Large groups of memes that are copied and passed on together are called co-adapted meme complexes, or memeplexes.” http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/memetics/about%20memes.htm
Perceptions and emotions are NOT memes: “perceptions and emotions are not memes because they are ours alone and we may never pass them on.” (p. 15 – The Meme Machine by S. Blackmore)
She makes it quite clear that memes are copied from person to person. They are NOT intuited, deduced, extrapolated, or innovated.
Blackmore cites the increase in tool variety in the archeological record as evidence of the proliferation of memes. What is ignored is that there must have been creative processes, invention or innovation prior to imitation for imitation to occur.
Self is defined as “a bunch of memes.” (p. 231 – The Meme Machine by S. Blackmore)
Per her definition of memes, emotions, and perceptions (and the accompanying attitudes from these by inference) are not included in the construct of self.
On the surface, the concept of a meme is a fine idea. But to assert that it is the basis of culture and the genus of culture, and the defining element of self is an assertion with limited merit and very poor evidence.
For example: it is simply not true that animals do not imitate. Cheetah mothers, for example, do teach their young how to hunt. Young cheetahs who are not taught by their mothers do not survive. Sheepdogs are taught by mature sheepdogs by imitation. There is a wealth of studies that indicate that animals do indeed learn by imitation, just as we do.
On one breath, memes (which are imitations or copies) are cited as the basis for progress/evolution, on the same breath it is explained that memes are not passed on intact, they are VARIED based on some form of discernment. A variation is NOT a copy. A variation is a mistake or a deliberate innovation or extrapolation.
And that variation is then chosen for copying based on a judgment or evaluation process that has to do with inspecting the copies and evaluating their worth. That process has nothing to do with copying. And that would be another component of self not included in the “bunch of memes” definition of self.
It seems obvious to me that culture certainly results from the preservation and transmission of knowledge from generation to generation, from individual to individual, from human to animal and vice-versa. While I agree completely that copying and imitation is a major factor in transmission and the preservation and propagation of knowledge (good, bad and indifferent), it is clearly not NOT the primary impetus for cultural evolution, change and innovation.
How about we just say that one of the major ways that people learn is by imitation. When imitation is accompanied by discernment and innovation, and there is some effort to employ integrity in choosing better ideas or concepts, we make progress or at the very least, variations that might result in some progress.
But of course, there is your question, Geir: Could you make a case for a particle that creates itself? Restated: there had to be something to copy in the first place, even on a purely physical level!
Maria, you should write your own book! Or at least a book review. Or a theory critique for the science journals.
Or anything at all you might want to write about! (Maybe you are already published?)
“Who’s meat is it?”
“So, there is no owner? Or is there an owner?”
“Could you make a case for a particle that creates itself?”
May I say that I love your beingness. (Not to pigeon-hole or limit. But to acknowledge your creation. :-))
Super smart
+ heart.
– by Lil’ Poem
A CASE FOR SOMETHING THAT CREATES ITSELF?
I jump on a Star Trek Teleporter. I have Scottie Scramble my atoms. I then have Scottie hit “copy and paste.”
Now there are two of my exact molecular structure.
Next, I replace Scottie at the controls and copy myself two more times.
And then the four of us play doubles tennis.
Nice ! “Cheeeeerio, Ms Sophie !” (or Miss/Madam Maria) … 🙂
Btw, which team are you cheering ?
I was rooting for the Colts but DAMNNNN!!!! they got themselves SLAUGHTERED!!!! Not much of a game – but the cheetos were good! LOL
What a relief!
Wow Marildi – thank you for that!
Good work Marildi. In the words of Bart Simpson, “Way to cite precedent!”
Someone once said that :
“The purpose of education is to replace an empty mind with an open one …”
(I guess this eg. refers to learning methods for reasoning as descibed in this little video.)
… and I think it was the famous Niels Bohr who said, :
“Now as we have found a paradox, we can make some progress …”
… but someone also said that :
“We are never so brilliant as when we acutally are wrong”
This video is really nice, this is really well explained I think …
It seems to me that this guy from the way he speaks and argues makes it seem to me that is not really out to convince of his brilliancy or that he is right but instead wants us to understand because he believes we will gain from being open-minded.
I am sure his point of view is valid not only regarding science but any environment, say religious, political or social. There are always some things that are considered as completely true, so called “conventional wisdom”, and there are things that are considered as outright heresy …
For some reason people tend to follow the winner, the one who “is right” we think, though very often this is only the most powerful one. There seems to be little political place for those who can admit they are wrong. Thus lots of arguing often acts as a front to hide more dubious power struggles and a cover for some sinister purposes.
For my own sake, when argumentation gets very emotional or “instrinsic”, I usually start looking for the real motives instead and whom of the debaters who are the least fixed on “winning” the argument.
Thanks for the first quote, I love it.
Thanks profant, I’m really a quote-geek, have a memory for quotes and jokes, but not so good on noting who actually said what … 😦
Tor, you said, “…lots of arguing often acts as a front to hide more dubious power struggles and a cover for some sinister purposes.”
Sounds right. I picked up a sort of “strain” in some of the “this-is-scientific!” materialistic presentations (while they would probably accuse those with a spiritual viewpoint of being the “emotional” ones). It reminded me of “The lady doth protest too much.” LRH quoted that Shakespeare line and also said that criticism which is “just a bit strained” is a symptom of overts. (HCOB “Justification”) A similar dynamic is expressed in “When one does not feel the urge to either criticize or defend a subject or idea, then one retains one’s freedom in that area”- Geir Isene 🙂 (Of course, he has been known to accuse ME of such too, but nevermind that. LOL)
You also said, “For some reason people tend to follow the winner, the one who “is right” we think, though very often this is only the most powerful one.”
Also called the “winning valence.” And, “might makes right.”
But now even the mechanics of the mind, like the physical universe, can possibly be explained in terms of quantum physics, i.e. wave function collapse and entanglement. Looks to me like the “most powerful” postulate (energy wise) does the collapsing.
Hi marildi, I have to think further on a reply to you … 🙂 Not sure if I understand all of it (except for that “Lady doth …”-thing, having to elder sisters, three daughters, an ex-wife and a girlfriend … 🙂 ) but re-reading sure helps every now an then … 🙂
Just another lady who’s hard to understand? I protest! 🙂
Hehe, weeeeeell … 😀
But actually I do not think it is you that is hard to understand, I fear it’s my own capabilities and knowledge that are failiing … 😀
You see, me not understanding you doesn’t necessarily mean that you are hard to understand … 🙂
You may or may not be a scholar (a humble one) but you’re a gentleman and a ladies’ man. 😀
Ooooooooh, thanks … (blushing heavily and feeling ears getting hot …) 😀
LOL 😀
Hi ho …
OK, I do be a scholar (edu appx similar to BSc), not that heavier reasoner, no at all like Geir …
… and a slow reasoner for that, but I think I know why really … 🙂
Yep, we agree on that emotional side, when people heavily attack or defend an opinion, then my doubts come forth …
On the winning stuff though, I tried to refer more to all those non-argumental-power issues (financial, political, even physical) that usually are not considered so bonafide in our modern society and thus has to “hidden” in other intentions that instead can be argued for, so that a group might fulfill their less “ethic” intentions via a kind of scapegoat …
Because what I see is that people do not necessarily follow the “Geir Isene”s of the world, but more often the “George Bush”-es, “Angela Merkel’ers” and even Stalins and Hitlers of the world …
Ever read “The Glass Bead Game” by Hesse ?
Tor Ivar
I knew it – a humble scholar. 🙂 But you say “…a slow reasoner for that, but I think I know why really…” That got my interest. Assuming it’s true that you’re a slow reasoner, I wonder what the “why” is. Maybe a matter of how different minds work, with their different values. An interesting subject.
The subject of how to know who to believe or what to believe is a heavy one. On an individual and face-to-face basis I can get a sense of a person and their intentions (given just a bit of time) and feel pretty confident. But even one-to-one on a via of written communication, as with blog comments, it can be uncertain at times. (BTW, you yourself give a sense of being a trustworthy guy. Not to make you blush, he he.) It’s not even so much the uncertainty about other posters’ “real meaning,” but whether or not they have or will duplicate mine! (LOL) What a drill in written communication when we try to express our inner feelings and thoughts.
No, I haven’t read Hesse – sounds pretty deep for a “slow reasoner.” 😉
Well Hesse isn’t always so heavy, except “The Glass Bead Game”, but very deep yes.
“Siddharta” is one of those rare books that are so beatiful it made me weep …
But reasoning, yeah … – Reasoning I guess is a skill one uses in one’s life tactics / strategics, depending on one’s experience with succeeding with it. So if you get positive feedback on reasoning with one’s family (typically your siblings and / or parents), you keep it as a strategy.
If not, I guess one looks for other tools … .. and one thing I really did learn is that you don’t win argument with your older sister, def not with TWO … 😀
So my tools became my ability to remember, repeat, and see patterns, thus I excelled at lots of the methodical school subjects …
… over years I also learned to trust my ability to see through, almost with intuitive understanding. However Intuition and gut feeling isn’t really that “black magic” as a lot people would like to consider it as, but more those things that your brain can analyze without yourself putting words to it …
I think I’ve read that psychologists have found that one’s brain analyze body language something like a 1000 times faster than anyone’s bran can analyze what a person is saying.
Btw., in my engineering studies (as mentioned prev.), I came with grades most students would envy … still.
… and so I never felt that I needed to practise reasoning and argumentation …
… and in other subjects where one would need to reason oneself or together with others to a goal that maybe wasn’t even absolute, I didn’t do it that well …
I guess it’s not funny with people who see the answer right away.
Anyway, then taking up and practising reasoning much later of course is much more heavier and the questions is always is it worth the gain etc. …
However as you kind of realized, my greatest feature (is that the right word) and also my worst tactics-wise, is my honesty … 🙂
Okay, from your short but sweet testimony, “Siddhartha” is one I’ll have to put on my reading list.
On the subject of reasoning ability, one thing I figure correlates (maybe directly) is one’s grasp of language. And even with English as your second language it’s clear you do fine with language.
You would more than likely be a good reasoner if that were your disposition – or if you “put your mind” to it. Actually, what you wrote about free will on another post today – “It only has to be the corollary of determinism where there is no choice at all” – I’m still working on understanding! (LOL)
The other great subject you brought up was intuition. It has come up here and there on these threads and as a result I think I’ve learned more about what LRH means by Knowing through “pervading the object.” (In case you wondered where that datum is from, Geir reminded me it’s from the “Route to Infinity” lectures.) I figure “object” has to include the objects in the mind – i.e. all the stored data. And when we “directly know” something it’s from an instant scan of that data – not realizing much, if anything, of exactly what was scanned. I think this is pretty much what you were saying too, except I’m not sure how much the brain is involved and how much it isn’t.
The other kinds of “objects” would be not only those of the physical universe but the universes/minds of others. My idea is that it’s a result of pervading those objects that we know “intuitively” what is there. But I have no theory for what is meant by direct knowledge of God (or whatever word fits the concept) Do you? Maybe it’s communication/contact with a quantum physics sub/under-layer of reality. That’s a notion I’ve come up with since I learned a bit about QM from the scientist types here.
Well, it seems honesty might indeed be your worst tactic – proved by people tending to talk (or write) your ear off. I hope your sisters and the rest of the ladies have gotten you used to it. 😉 But actually, honesty is a great feature, right up at the top of the list. There has to be trust for communication to flow easily. And lately I’ve been thinking it’s as important to feel you are trustED as to feel trust IN. Otherwise, the freedom OF free will gets curtailed. 🙂
Beautiful references.
Thanks Chris 🙂
Interesting. Just a month or so ago I read an article on “Capaciousness” – describing basically the same stuff: http://www.ivymag.org/WebIVy/PerPTS2.htm
Okay, the “Honorary Scientologist” (per Marildi) AKA “A Lousy OSA Agent” (per Marty) had a “cog” for both sides of this topic.
SIDE 1: MEAT HYPOTHESIS TRUE AND SPIRIT BODY IS FALSE:
If we are only meat wads, we are free because nothing we do will ever come from a real self. We are a dream and can do no wrong cuz there is no moral choice for meat to make. Therefore we can do whatever we want to: MEAT IS FREE AND LIFE IS A FREE GIFT CREATED OF DREAMING MEAT WADS.
SIDE 2: MEAT HYPOTHESIS FALSE AND SPIRIT BODY IS TRUE:
If we are Thetans, we are free cuz we live forever. Any action taken in any lifetime will eventually (given infinite cycles) will work itself out until we are free beings who have dealt with the other free beings that are creating MEST. Therefore we can do whatever we want to: THETANS ARE FREE AND LIFE IS A FREE GIFT OF DREAMING THETANS.
So, may I suggest we all just do what we want and be free? Freedom is really the goal after all. We just need to stop asking permission for it and just live it.
So screw everybody, I’m doing whatever I want to do.
Meat and Thetans can be free if either one or both actually exist. And for me, it’s just a matter of doing zazen. It doesn’t matter if the sitting is done by a thetan or a meat wad. In either case …
“Zazen is enlightenment.” – Dogen
Very cool post, kg.
My choice of my own free will was to believe in you and your postulate (otherwise known as free will) – and I still do. 🙂
Marildi, thanks for your ARC. Really appreciate your warm attitude toward a meat muggle.
So, in appreciation, here is some food recipes for you to enjoy on my Vegan Food Blog. (I follow the Food Science of Doctor Esselystyn based on his book “How to Reverse Heart Disease”)
Perhaps for all the hell I put you through you may get some decent food out of it!
http://www.cheapassvegan.wordpress.com
“warm attitude toward a meat muggle”
You’re in luck, I actually like meat (I’m a Type O).
But your recipies look yummy. 🙂
🙂
Self Creation Part 2:
After I have copied my molecular on my spiffy teleporter from Star Trek, I decide to get creative.
I take Pi and look through it randomly with a quantum computer for a code that can be transmuted into a meat body with my hacked teleporter.
I push print and there it is and it’s an exact copy of Geir Isene.
CONCLUSION: If something exists mathematically or physically, then it can be copied. But nothing can create itself without it already existing mathematically. But everything that exists mathematically ALWAYS exists. And anything that exists physically exists mathematically. But not all things that exist mathematically exist physically.
There is no “self-creation by self” because you can only be if you already are.
Make a case for purely mathematical existence.
((NOTE: THIS IS BULLSHIT AND I KNOW IT. BUT THESE ARE CREATIVE EXERCISES LIKE MOST OF THE STUFF HERE. ITS THE BEST I COULD COME UP WITH ON THE FLY. SUSAN BLACKMORE HAS ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT MEMETICS THEORY IS FAR FROM CIOMPLETE))
Math according to KG, never is complete.
Some think it can be DIFFERENT with DIFFERENT RULES.
Assume for a minute that math could be a living thing that is ever evolving. The Pythagoreans thought number was God. Assume the strange view that such evolution could emerge from the idea of being instantly complete yet never finished at the same time.
Since math exits, then it can be copied. And across different universes, different maths could emerge and face a struggle for selection. Those selected are copied and the contest rages on.
The copies, could evolve differently based on their unique mathematics. Different universes could create different mathematics that are both instant and never complete.
These mathematical realities would both exist in the emptiness and both be different. Since math is ALL in the emptiness and they all exist in their entirety, they are all together in unity.
And 2 + 2 would always equal four. But that 0 guy could create a lot of problems and variation. And “Whenever you have variation, selection and heredity, then evolution must occur or design out of chaos without the aid of mind.”
And the types of math you embrace could be a result of the kind of universe you are in.
MATH COULD THEN BE USED TO MAKE UNIVERSES.
IT COULD BE DERIVED FROM EXISTING UNIVERSES.
We thought there was ONE planet. Then we thought there was ONE solar system. And then we thought there was ONE galaxy. And then we thought there was ONE universe.
AND WE’VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE MATH!
Not an answer to the challenge to make a case for the existence of math separate from anything physical.
Apart from that, Gôdel already proved that math can never be both complete and consistent.
I was replying to the mathematical existence of the soul not the existence of math itself as a separate reality. Misunderstood your question.
Yes. Now would you answer?
AN AD-HOC CASE FOR INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE OF “NUMBER” AS IT’S OWN REALITY
1. IF NUMBER WERE IT’S OWN REALITY, IT WOULD HAVE THEORIES AND BRANCHES OF ITSELF THAT EXIST OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL REALITIES OF OUR UNIVERSE.
QUESTION: DO SUCH BRANCHES EXIST?
2. IF NUMBER EXISTED OUTSIDE OF OUR UNIVERSE AND CONTROLLED IT, YOU WOULD EXPECT IT TO ACT IN SUPERIOR WAYS IN REGARDS TO ITS MANIFESTATION.
QUESTION: HAVE YOU EVER NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A NUMBER FIVE WHEN YOU NEEDED ONE? WHERE DOES THIS “5” COME FROM?
3. IF NUMBER EXISTED OUTSIDE OF OUR UNIVERSE AND CONTROLLED IT, YOU WOULD EXPECT THE UNIVERSE TO BE USED BY IT, AND YET NUMBER BE SEPARATE AND INTANGIBLE.
QUESTION: CAN THE NUMBER 5 TAKE UP SPACE WITH 5 PING PONG BALLS? CAN IT EXIST WITHOUT SPACE? AGAIN, WHERE DOES “5” COME FROM WHEN YOU LOOK AT YOUR HAND?
4. IF NUMBER IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY THAT CONTROLLED THE UNIVERSE, YOU WOULD EXPECT SCIENTISTS TO MAKE MAJOR DISCOVERIES OF IT WITHOUT THE NEED FOR MUCH PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION FROM THE UNIVERSE.
QUESTION: WHAT ELSE BESIDES PENCIL AND PAPER DOES ONE NEED?
Such answers are admittedly trite.
But thanks for the question. Sometimes all one really needs to inspire inquiry is a REALLY good question.
“What is the case and evidence for an independent existence of mathematics that is outside the realm of physics?”
I’ll go work on that one.
Love to all of you.
The bottom line that I’m throwing up for suggestion is that Pythagoras was right about the soul. It is mathematical. I hang around here because I’m a Pythagorean by heart and there is no other place I know of where people can see the soul as a static.
I want to throw out there that it may be possible for a soul to exist as a MATHEMATICAL VIEWPOINT OF REALITY THAT IS TRUE AND UNIQUE TO ITSELF.
We tend to think that there is only one “TRUE” math. What if … there is more more than one? And each math was its own point of view? Would each “TRUE” math in fact be …
You know …
A spirit?
A weeping angel?
Any other suggestions for a name?
And IF it was true and MULTIPLE TRUE UNIQUE MATHEMATICAL VIEWPOINTS were in collusion with OTHER mathematical viewpoints to agree on common mathematics they all internally share what would you get?
A shared universe?
And depending on the creation there could be a Meat-Thetan-Geir and a Meat-Only-Geir. Same Geir, same actions, but different “Intel Inside.” And what about a Geir that had a Katageek for a spirit?
Geirs, Geirs everywhere across the potentials, but which one has free will?
I don’t think any UNIQUE MATHEMATICAL SPIRT HAS FREE WILL OF ITSELF. I think if it exists then it requires the co-creation of others for the story of free will to manifest. And if the STORY exists … we at least have something to long for. Free Will exists as a beautiful story for right now. And we’ve yet to find out for sure how it is authored.
If I have free will, it’s because it was created by the existence and help of others. I certainly didn’t nurse myself or change out my diapers. I didn’t’ build my own crib.
And yet, the math of katageek exists and I can lists hundreds of ways that it does.
How exactly do you PERSONALLY define and identify free will? Then it may be possible to enter into discussion with you.
Please do not make the assumption that I already know what YOUR definition is, for this is a phrase that has been defined/delineated in many different ways in many different philosophies and theologies, with many different properties and associations. i.e. what are the markers you are using to name / recognize / identify / define / realize “free will?”
“…no other place I know of where people can see the soul as a static.”
Looking forward to your answer to Maria’s question about your personal idea of “free will.” And please include with that your concept of “static.”
I would say free will would be the ability to choose to NOT kill my family and then go on a shooting spree and kill 13 people like this guy with a brain tumor did.
http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/8520/1/
“I would say free will would be the ability to choose to NOT kill my family and then go on a shooting spree and kill 13 people like this guy with a brain tumor did.”
Since you have not taken the time to state this as a definition, I will attempt to restate and generalize your example of free will into a possible definition:
Free will is the ability to deliberately and perfectly control all participants, events and qualities of existence, internal and external, subjective and objective.
If free will is prevailing then there would be no death, no accidents, no mistakes, no malfunctions, no conflict, no harm, no entropy, no destruction, no failure.
It follows that if I have free will by this definition, I must be the only one who has free will and I must know at all times what constitutes perfection for all. Since my free will and my perfection must prevail at all times, to qualify as free will, there can be no other free will to tamper with it or do anything different from what I will. No one under my purview may die, make mistakes, malfunction, bring any harm, or do anything that would mar perfection. No thing under my purview may dissolve, change, disintegrate, or alter in any way that would mar perfection. Finally, perfection must be perfectly recognizable as perfection and wholly accepted as perfection by all life-forms participating within that perfection.
“Free will is the ability to deliberately and perfectly control all participants, events and qualities of existence, internal and external, subjective and objective.”
No. Here is a better definition of what I’m saying.
“FREE WILL IS THE IMMUTABLE ABILITY OF A BEING TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES AND WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SPIRITUAL BEING IF SUCH POWER COULD TRULY MANIFEST.”
If a spiritual being’s ABILITY TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES is connected to cause and effect then the being does not have free will and it is NOT A SPIRITUAL BEING AT ALL BUT A DELUSIONAL OUTCOME OF FROM CAUSE AND EFFECT.
AKA: Meat.
Now, lots of OTs here. Lots of spiritual beings. Here is a Reality “Free Will” check for you:
TEST #1: Find a food you don’t like. Choose to like it more than any other kind.
TEST #2: Find music you don’t like. Choose to love it more than any other kind.
TEST #3: Find things you think aren’t funny but that other people think are funny. Find them funny.
TEST #4: Choose to not be sleepy and don’t sleep for four days.
Cuz, you may notice that you TEND TO CHOOSE THINGS YOU NATURALLY ARE DRAWN TO. WHAT IS THIS DRAWING FORCE?
“If a spiritual being’s ABILITY TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES is connected to cause and effect then the being does not have free will and it is NOT A SPIRITUAL BEING AT ALL BUT A DELUSIONAL OUTCOME OF FROM CAUSE AND EFFECT.”
That is a leap of logic. It is wrong – and here is how I can prove it: By asking you to prove the the word “connected” makes the sentence true. Glove is on the ground.
Chivalry is not dead! 🙂
But is it clear which way “connected” is meant? There’s (1) “united, joined, or linked” and (2) “linked coherently.”
It doesn’t matter which of these is used. Katageek; Go for it. Prove.
Yup. It’s wrong and sucks big time. It’s illogical.
“FREE WILL IS THE IMMUTABLE ABILITY OF A BEING TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES AND WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SPIRITUAL BEING IF SUCH POWER COULD TRULY MANIFEST IN A MATERIAL UNIVERSE WITHIN ONES OWN BODY.”
If a person PERCEIVES THEMSELVES AS A spiritual being’s but whose ABILITY TO CHOOSE AMONG OPTIONS AND PREFERENCES is only a direct result of cause and effect, then that being does not have free will and it is NOT A SPIRITUAL BEING AT ALL BUT A DELUSIONAL OUTCOME OF CAUSE AND EFFECT THAT MISUNDERSTANDS ITS TRUE SOURCE.
If a Thetan really “runs” a meat body, then the Thetan should be able to CHOOSE PREFERENCES AND OPTIONS.
And yet, many top OTs are heavy smokers and cannot quit. An OT VIII in Austria admits to being unable to quit smoking and yet claims to be OT VIII. He even sells e-cigs for a healthier option. And from all counts he’s a great guy.
Forget picking up pencils with the mind, these OTs cannot even change their own preferences or choose to override them with free WILL POWER.
And that IS the problem.
Free Will means FREE WILL POWER.
And if a Thetan were running a meat body, you would think it could choose to laugh during torture. Or just shut down it’s acceptance of pain. Or get hooked on crack and quit just for fun.
Or just say no to the emotional madness caused by a brain tumor and choose NOT to kill his family or over a dozen strangers from the Tower at the University of Texas.
WHERE’S THE FREE WILL POWER?
Good. You spotted it.
Now, next round… tell me what logical fallacy this constitutes:
“And yet, many top OTs are heavy smokers and cannot quit. An OT VIII in Austria admits to being unable to quit smoking and yet claims to be OT VIII. He even sells e-cigs for a healthier option. And from all counts he’s a great guy.
Forget picking up pencils with the mind, these OTs cannot even change their own preferences or choose to override them with free WILL POWER.
And that IS the problem.
Free Will means FREE WILL POWER.
And if a Thetan were running a meat body, you would think it could choose to laugh during torture. Or just shut down it’s acceptance of pain. Or get hooked on crack and quit just for fun.
Or just say no to the emotional madness caused by a brain tumor and choose NOT to kill his family or over a dozen strangers from the Tower at the University of Texas. “
kg – thank you for clearing up your definition. I do not agree with your definition.
I note with interest that you have altered the words being defined, changing it from “free will” to “free will power.” Then you defined absolute power of action / manifestation. Then you shifted to the abilities of OTs, as if proving that an OT does not have absolute power of action per your definition, then somehow your definition is correct. WTF does the action / behavior of some person who says he is an OT have to do with the discussion of the definition of free will?
We are closing in on the local fallacy here …
Sure. After you define the free will relationship between a Thetan and a meat body. How would you tell between a free will Thetan running a meat body and Roy from Bladerunner? If there is no difference then why would one study how to rehab a Thetan?
Take the challenge Roy.
Let me get this straight – you want to know the difference between a purely fictional movie character and the people who wrote the movie, filmed the movie, acted in the movie and finally went and saw the movie?
Answer mine first.
Nice try. You got the challenge first.
Kg, even if you lose the debate you can win “back” your soul. 🙂
You guys don’t like my definition, because it it falsifiable and ties free will to the physical universe and an eternal being within that being’s chosen body and the choices being made within that body.
A FALSIFIABLE DEFINITION WHICH I NERF COMPLETELY.
Geir has no definition of Free Will in his article. He doesn’t define the being or the way a being chooses and both would have to be done for free will to be understood.
He places free will as “unprovable” in our universe.
He states that free will can make changes in our physical universe even if only on a small level like the Butterfly Effect, but by using “potential” makes his claim moot because as he states there is no way to know for sure if free will caused something or failed to cause something.
Free Will, if it exists according to my falsifiable definition, would be the most powerful thing in the Universe run by the most powerful beings in the universe. And yet, the Buddha never toured around all the torture chambers to get a good laugh while they tried to get him to groan.
If “free will” is a potential, then nobody on the earth has a Free Will Stat of 19 on a twenty sided die as far torture goes. We top out at a stat around 5.
But note: there is no way to prove this stat is caused by free will according to Geir.
The famous Buddhist Monk Matthieu Ricard, the happiest man in the world according to Science, would be reduced to misery within 6 months of severe torture and sleep deprivation.
So, there is no REAL free will in this universe according to my wonderfully falsifiable definition. But since you guys don’t HAVE a definition, then you can rest in your belief that you may be right by saying we can’t prove it false or true.
MY SIMPLER FALSIFIABLE DEFINITION: “Free will is the ability of an eternal soul to CHOOSE and the POWER to enforce that CHOICE within the body it inhabits.”
EXAMPLE:
BRAIN TUMOR GUY: “My immortal spirit chooses to not listen to my raging impulses to kill my family. It’s choosing to not have my body use my fingers on a gun for 48 hours.”
That there definition FAILS among guys with tumors in their heads. But at least it says what free will is and fails honestly. Geir never states it. My guess is that it will go like this …
“Free Will cannot be defined – only experienced.”
You have so misunderstood my article. Go to cramming.
Your previous comment contains such a blatant logical fallacy that it should be easily spotted. Please tell me which fallacy it is.
Glove is still on the ground.
Geir, I’m tire of your faux Socratic method.
It’s condescending.
Here ONE MORE TIME LET ME QUOTE YOUR ARTICLE:
“As free will lies outside the physical universe and acts as an external influence, it cannot be directly proven or disproved in and by the physical universe. ANY PROOF CAN ONLY BE CIRCUMSTANTIAL. The weakness of this theory is that it can not be proven to those who will accept only direct physical proof of a phenomena.”
TRANSLATION: “FREE WILL IS THE NEW BIGFOOT.”
Take the challenge or state that you won’t.
Here’s my untutored way to describe free will:
It can be looked at in the frame of reference of a game. Any game has freedoms and barriers, by definition. Obviously, if there were a “game” with nothing but barriers at every turn, there would be no way to “move” except by being pushed around by all the forces that be – whether free will existed or not. But assuming a spirit in a meat body actually did have free will – WITHIN certain barriers, those of the physical universe including the restrictions of a body, as well as the barriers of the mind, the choices would only be limited by those particular barriers – but one could still choose from the remaining options.
Take as an analogy a person overpoweringly locked up in a room who is prevented by the walls or whatever barriers from moving out of or outside of the room. But with no barriers inside the room there would still be every option of movement within it – now barred only by the barriers in his mind. But, again in the frame of reference of a game, the mind barriers wouldn’t be absolute either and the mind could be seen as a kind of room too – i.e. within certain limits, the “room” of one’s mind, there are choices.
In other words, if there existed something less than total barriers of the physical universe or less than total barriers of the mind, there could be “room” for free will and choice.
There seems to be two separate questions – is there free will and are there total barriers. If there are total barriers free will could still exist, or not, but it wouldn’t matter.
One thing I know for sure, if you give a mouse a cookie …
It wants a glass of milk.
Look… over there… on the ground… it’s a…. GLOVE!
Hmm. Wait a minute.
And then my self CREATES another version of me by using DIFFERENT MATH. Kind of like how you code “Myst” for a Playstation different than you do for a PC. Or like how Coffee Cuppers make the same taste of coffee out of different types of beans.
And then hit “Print” on the hacked teleporter and I create a me from code different from my own.
So that would be an example if we ever get advanced enough.
Imho, you can not delet the existence of god in a spiritual analisis as from him the free will is created.
Perhaps the etymology of the words free and will can offer some insight:
will (v.)
O.E. *willan, wyllan “to wish, desire, want” (past tense wolde), from P.Gmc. *welljan (cf. O.S. willian, O.N. vilja, O.Fris. willa, Du. willen, O.H.G. wellan, Ger. wollen, Goth. wiljan “to will, wish, desire,” Goth. waljan “to choose”), from PIE *wel-/*wol- “be pleasing” (cf. Skt. vrnoti “chooses, prefers,” varyah “to be chosen, eligible, excellent,” varanam “choosing;” Avestan verenav- “to wish, will, choose;” Gk. elpis “hope;” L. volo, velle “to wish, will, desire;” O.C.S. voljo, voliti “to will,” veljo, veleti “to command;” Lith. velyti “to wish, favor,” pa-vel-mi “I will,” viliuos “I hope;” Welsh gwell “better”). Cf. also O.E. wel “well,” lit. “according to one’s wish;” wela “well-being, riches.” The use as a future auxiliary was already developing in O.E. The implication of intention or volition distinguishes it from shall, which expresses or implies obligation or necessity. Contracted forms, especially after pronouns, began to appear 16c., as in sheele for “she will.” The form with an apostrophe is from 17c.
intend (v.)
c.1300, “direct one’s attention to,” from O.Fr. entendre, intendre “to direct one’s attention” (in Modern French principally “to hear”), from L. intendere “turn one’s attention, strain,” lit. “stretch out, extend,” from in- “toward” (see in- (2)) + tendere “to stretch” (see tenet). Sense of “have as a plan” (late 14c.) was present in Latin. A Germanic word for this was ettle, from O.N. ætla “to think, conjecture, propose,” from P.Gmc. *ahta “consideration, attention” (cf. O.E. eaht, Ger. acht). Intended (n.) “one’s intended husband or wife” is from 1767.
volition
1610s, from Fr. volition (16c.), from M.L. volitionem (nom. volitio) “will, volition,” from L. stem (as in volo “I wish”) of velle “to wish,” from PIE *wel-/*wol- “be pleasing”
free (v.)
O.E. freogan “to free, liberate, manumit,” also “to love, think of lovingly, honor,” from freo (see free (adj.)). Cf. O.Fris. fria “to make free;” O.S. friohan “to court, woo;” Ger. befreien “to free,” freien “to woo;” O.N. frja “to love;” Goth. frijon “to love.” Related: Freed; freeing.
free (adj.)
O.E. freo “free, exempt from, not in bondage,” also “noble; joyful,” from P.Gmc. *frijaz (cf. O.Fris. fri, O.S., O.H.G. vri, Ger. frei, Du. vrij, Goth. freis “free”), from PIE *prijos “dear, beloved,” from base *pri- “to love” (cf. Skt. priyah “own, dear, beloved,” priyate “loves;” O.C.S. prijati “to help,” prijatelji “friend;” Welsh rhydd “free”). The adverb is from O.E. freon, freogan “to free, love.”
The primary sense seems to have been “beloved, friend, to love;” which in some languages (notably Germanic and Celtic) developed also a sense of “free,” perhaps from the terms “beloved” or “friend” being applied to the free members of one’s clan (as opposed to slaves, cf. L. liberi, meaning both “free” and “children”). Cf. Goth. frijon “to love;” O.E. freod “affection, friendship,” friga “love,” friðu “peace;” O.N. friðr, Ger. Friede “peace;” O.E. freo “wife;” O.N. Frigg “wife of Odin,” lit. “beloved” or “loving;” M.L.G. vrien “to take to wife, Du. vrijen, Ger. freien “to woo.”
Of nations, “not subject to foreign rule or to despotism,” it is recorded from late 14c. (Free world “non-communist nations” attested from 1950.) Sense of “given without cost” is 1580s, from notion of “free of cost.” Free lunch, originally offered in bars to draw in business, by 1850, Amer.Eng. Free pass on railways, etc., attested by 1850. Free speech in Britain used of a privilege in Parliament since the time of Henry VIII. In U.S., as a civil right, it became a prominent phrase in the debates over the Gag Rule (1836). Free enterprise recorded from 1890; free trade is from 1823. Free will is from early 13c. Free association in psychology is from 1899. Free love “sexual liberation” attested from 1822. Free range (adj.) is attested by 1960. Free and easy “unrestrained” is from 1690s.
My take :
The proof of free will lies in creativity.
Only for any universe in which the being is able to create and uncreate knowingly and at will, with no limits.
That would include the complete creation and vanishment of such universe too.
I like this approach, very much.
I’ve studied my own actions very thoroughly over the last 10 years, both subjective and objective. One of the observations that I have made is that I cannot find a true now within the “concrete” manifestations of the physical universe. When I standing on the leading edge of time, where present becomes past, that infinitesimal dividing line between what was and what will be, stepping forward into the next reality, I find that in that infinitesimal yet somehow infinite delineation marker, I bring a host of past experiences (subjective and objective), a host of conjectured experiences, and an entire host of imagined futures. I find that perception is always of the past. In other words, I perceive what is already created.
Ten days ago, I considered the possibility of going to a movie. In considering that I relied on prediction based on past events, a prediction that in ten days the world would still have a movie house in it. I based this on my memory of past events. Then I considered the possible pleasures offered by the movie trailer, imagining how it might be and deciding if the possibility of pleasure was strong enough to bother to go to the movie. Weirdly, I did an advance preview. And that was based on my memory of seemingly similar movies. I then set a marker (a marker?????) to remember to go to the movie on the day it came out. I built an entire future 10 days previous out of past remembrances and created / imagined possibilities. Then I watched as the experience unfolded. I left entire segments of the future unconsidered or only vaguely outlined, setting up instead interactions with others with which to plush out unconsidered territory.
The only now I can find in this sequence is the point just before I begin considering, a point that is null, a null that I fill with imagined, perceived and experienced THINGS.
Currently it appears to me that the collection consisting my imagination, consideration and memory is every bit as real than the physical universe. It just doesn’t have mass that is subject to gravity and until it is apprehended by another it isn’t a consensus – or is it?
Perhaps the phrase “thoughts are things” is an absolute? And if the physical universe and thoughts are all things, then perhaps the only difference between them is that one or more of us can see a now that apparently is consistent. I say apparently, because I really don’t know what you see / experience even as we agree, yes, that was a great movie!
Have you found any other approaches that might be helpful in expanding my examination of this process? Have you found anything along this line yourself?
Regarding the instant of creation, I have been working in the reduction of mind (what you properly refer to as the host of past experiences, conjectured experiences and imagined futures) to zero, no anticipation, no resistance, that has given me a feeling like I´m gliding trough MEST, advancing with very little effort.
If I were to say this approach improved my control over MEST I would be lying, it is a very small test, and would be on the side of “being cause by being effect” or something like that which does not make a good case in favor of “free will”,
Maybe what did happen was that for the first time in my life, I was not presenting resistance to the flow of life, sort of a negative gain.
What seems clear is that achieving free will in the mest universe would mean enforcing it on everyone else or everybody becoming one, a no games condition.
I’m so glad you answered!!
I too have experienced this gliding effect -for me, it feels as if I am completely motionless in the midst of forms that continually shift / coalesce around me.
I also experienced an awareness of this as “being cause by being effect.”
Simultaneously I experienced an awareness of “being effect by being cause” with the cause-point occurring within that seemingly infinitesimal time in which I seem to not be anything at all. I am briefly (yet vividly) aware that I am not in the time stream (language falls apart here as an adequate descriptor.) And in that state I find myself generating, but not out of a nexus of past.
I have been experimenting with that and what I find is that if I imagine / expect / conceive of little things while in that state, they routinely appear in my life – sometimes within hours, often within a few days. It has been fascinating and I find myself shrinking from doing it much, like I am worried about consequences. The lag has become shorter and shorter. I have found that I must be in the state of gliding and the marker seems to be a state of joy. I think of it as the state of the joy of creating for lack of better description.
Based on the discussions on this thread, unlimited free will in the form of absolute power of manifestation would indeed have to take the form of a no games condition, perhaps even an exit from the game. Perhaps that is exactly what happens, An exit from the game. I have a niggling suspicion that this may be at the bottom of my worrying about consequences.
Yes, I have experienced those things also, but I can also tell you are way ahead of me. (My description of it was very fuzzy, and yours is quite precise). This seems to be a path which is walkable, real and magical at the same time.
Joy of creating is the best words can do, and the vanishment of ego and selfishness.
Cause and effect, time and space become secondary.
And I also feel that anxiety you mention: The point of creation is possibly also the exit from the game.
One can almost see the outside then the viewpoint vanishes, just when starting to look at an infinite number of absolutes………
I would dare saying the point of creating is the only one which lies just outside the cage.
I know I´m not making much sense Maria, I´m kind of experiencing a chaotic clash with the unknown, and things haven´t settled, but I´m working on the idea that the material universe is made up of relatives, and ourselves are made of absolutes, something along this line:
The material universe seems to be made of motion, and motion within motion, and so on, with no basic particles at the origin of all that motion being observed so far, or a basic frame sustaining it all.
In our effort to know, the best we have been able do do, is discover patterns of motion, and patterns within patterns.
Each piece of knowledge we have, each datum, consists of a fixed frame of motion which shows a pattern.
The best description of “ourselves” or consciousness I have found, is of an absolute static making fixed frames of motion, in a process of reach and withdraw, but, the moment it becomes inmersed in motion, and without an outer frame of reference, as each pattern has an appearance of no motion, the true static can become identified with it and becomes trapped, fixed in it, solidified:
That pattern has turned into a stable datum, a basic frame of reference, a false static, a point from which everything else will be observed and structured into relative patterns.
I am kind of chuckling reading your last post because you seem to be experiencing a similar bafflement to me – for me its kind of seeing something out of the corner of your eye or having a memory or idea just slightly out of reach – I can almost get it – its just right there!! But it slips away just as I grasp it.
Sometimes I have this odd notion that there’s really just a bunch of white noise like what you see on a T.V. that isn’t tuned to a station. Even a sound like that. There is no form or meaning, just noise. And then the meaning is applied over it and voila! it gains definition, but its really just noise reflecting a superimposition of meaning – color, emotion, form, weight and so on, through the entire spectrum of differentiation. Kind of like a super sophisticated 3D etch-a-sketch.
And along with that this notion that the physical world could be likened to a sponge (not a dead sponge, a live one) and this absolute permeates every nook and cranny of the sponge, rather like saturating it. The sponge is contained, immersed, completely saturated. It lives in it. It takes its life from it, all meaning from it, it takes it in and breaths it out. Its not a truly satisfactory analogy but it is better than thinking of a “separateness.”
And yes, I have been considering absolutes. It is very clear to me that the physical world is totally relative, in process constantly and in a state of constant flux. It is also clear to me that it is what has come to pass.
Hi Maria
“… its kind of seeing something out of the corner of your eye or having a memory or idea just slightly out of reach – I can almost get it – its just right there!! But it slips away just as I grasp it. ”
Ah, this is so nice, “… just right there”, it reminds me so of that “Somebody Else’s Problem”-phenomena in the HitchHiker’s Guide … 😀
You can’t see if you look at it directly, you have catch in the corner of your eye, but you always kind of know, it’s just right there. 😀
“Sometimes I have this odd notion that there’s really just a bunch of white noise like what you see on a T.V. that isn’t tuned to a station. Even a sound like that. There is no form or meaning, just noise. And then the meaning is applied over it and voila! it gains definition, but its really just noise reflecting a superimposition of meaning – color, emotion, form, weight and so on, through the entire spectrum of differentiation. Kind of like a super sophisticated 3D etch-a-sketch.”
Yeah mee too ABSOLUTELY!(He, he)…….. Words fail miserably here, it has the appearance of chaos, but I guess that is how the “universe of infinite probabilities” or the “infinite amount of (absolute?) universes” or the “multiverse” would be, and we are looking only at a small, instant frame of it…….or creating(collapsing?) an instant frame of it………
Guess I´m just looking at this chaos and trying to extract a meaning……..
Interesting how this apparent contradiction occurs:
To get in contact with this unharmonic “chaos” is only possible through moving into very fine harmonics….. undisturbed looking…. aestetics….. a state of Joy of creation……
With yet another apparent contradiction: abandon of self…. let go of…. everything….
and, yet, surprisingly, still remain “here” somehow
Contradictions within contradictions….
It is not possible to get there when one tries (or needs) to mantain feet on a fixed base, a stable datum, a coherent mind…. a logic structure… guess that is the price to pay for endless fun,
In my case, it was like being able to be crazy and completely serene at the same time!
Of course, not possible to know if I was already crazy Ha ha ha!
Absolutes, being what they are, don´t have an outer side, by definition, they just embrace everything and all… right?
Something I still misunderstand here: The physical universe is filled with apparent absolutes, every fixed pattern, every law of phisics, appears to be absolute within its own realm of action, but then, when we look at it from a bigger frame of reference it becomes relative…
Logic is always relative, have to focus on at least two different things to compare, needs a frame of reference, a stable datum, a starting point.
Could it possibly be that…..
Absolute perfection, if looked at through a mind, (and not being possible to include it inside any frame of reference) can only be perceived as chaos?
What a great comm cycle between Maria and Rafael. I too experience this gliding effect. My interpretation of this is the machine at its best and most efficient operating for a moment in calm and serene waters without counter effort. Hands off the wheel and gliding straight and true — the essence of perfect illusion.
But meditate for a time — or call it confronting — on the untuned television screen and after a time I begin to see both a pattern to the snow and a slowing until the “frames” begin to show up in the vertical and horizontal hold.
In sleep I can flick the channels and not move but quantum leap from channel to channel. And I think that motion including the motion of time is the grandest and most perfectly crafted illusion of all.
“The chaos” that you observe might be a real glimpse of the background of the potential from which all focused reality coalesces.
I tend to agree with your comment that free-will is creative, but the rest of it “Only for any universe in which the being is able to create and uncreate knowingly and at will, with no limits. That would include the complete creation and vanishment of such universe, too.” — Not so much.
Referring to Marildi’s comment regarding “games,” it seems to me obvious that there is free-will within a defined field of play. The freedoms are lain out and within that framework, one has free-will. Playing a board game one has free-will within parameters, and so forth. This seems free-will to me to be able to move the chess pieces; when it is my turn, and according to rules (which I freely agreed to.)
I tend to think that the rules of the game “balance the free will” so that everybody can have some. It would be not much fun to play with someone or others who executed completely free-will. On the other hand, we routinely consent to curb excess free-will in order to play a game.
My epiphany writing this is that your statement seems consistent if we change, “,no limits.” to “within prescribed limits.” See? In this way, if someone wants to “take their ball and go home” they can.
Yes, I see your point Chris, you are framing it in the MEST universe, inside of which absolute free will is not attainable, but in this case I am taking a different approach, I guess I am also a Pythagorean by heart, and I was trying to make a mathematical statement, and I purposely stated it in an absolute way, but that would not be for the MEST universe, only for universes which the being is able to create and uncreate, knowingly.
You see, absolutes do not exist in the MEST universe, but they can exist in in our mind.
Each time we “think a thought”,we can create universes of our own in which we can exert absolute free will (creativity). As long as we retain our ability to make them appear and dissapear at will.
That is the beauty of the mind, and that is also the beauty of mathematical universes, because they can contain absolutes too, and in my view, that places them potentially above the MEST universe.
So, maybe a basic mistake here could be a confusion of universes, each instant in which we “look” at the physical universe, if we try to understand it in terms of absolute concepts we are doomed to fail.
Our universe seems to be inside the physical universe, as an effect of it. The moment we become certain that we can create it outside we become free.(Or crazy, I´m not yet completely sure which).
Fractals demonstrate to me the reality of universes within universes. It also demonstrates to me the potential to become fixated upon the kaleidoscopic entertainment that the automaticities contained within framework of the physical provide. It is addictive.
When we aren’t lazy, we create. Could it be that when we are lazy we are coasting inside and when we are creating we are pedaling from outside?
Pedaling from the outside?
Hey Dude, You really don´t let language get in your way, do you?
If I ever write a book on Quantum Mechanics (probably not until next lifetime), I want you to be my editor, your description is terrific, I just love it.
Thanks Rafael. I think that’s the nicest compliment I ever received, “Hey dude, you really don’t let language get in your way, do you?” And with that I should retire from blogging forever as I will never improve upon this.
Right back at you. Your fresh points of view have given me several new things to consider. I especially appreciate your earlier synopsis of Vinay’s KHTK. Very astute and concise.
You should have helped Stephen Hawking on “The Grand Design”.
The book is good, but the jokes are….pathetic.
When LRH said, “It’s alright to have an open mind, so long as the openness doesn’t consist only of holes.” I took this to heart and saved and savored this little implant of false data/truism for the past ever so many years.
It is embarrassing to me to recognize my own bias against “open-mindedness” when it is being so very well described by so many of you on this thread.
Hmm, am I right in thinking that LRH-statement are kind of similar to my “Empty- vs Open-mind”-quote ?
PS: I loved that quote.
🙂
Free will seems contextual for every frame of reference.
It seems to me there’s no logical argument for “free will” which requires direct evidence. Arguments in favor of “determinism” seem stretched beyond reason if we consider the observation required for quantum physics to work.
Marildi’s example using “games” seems apt to me. Games by definition collar free will. Can Marildi make a rock so big that she can’t pick it up? If she has free will, she can. Saying she can’t pick up the rock and so therefore has no free will is a fallacy. This is the context in which free will vs. determinism is being argued and therefore direct evidence is not available. Harnessing free will to sweeping of standards of power, glory, freedom, whatever which have to be met to prove it exists are moot without a corresponding context.
Tor Ivar Nilsen
2011-10-27 at 21:46
Hmm, am I right in thinking that LRH-statement are kind of similar to my “Empty- vs Open-mind”-quote ?
Hey Tor,
Yes, same subject, but opposite effect. LRH’s statement was paving the road for his “Keeping Scientology Working” fascism. Open mindedness to him in the context of establishing the Churches of Scientology was something to be shunned. LRH said many “right things” about freedom and then went on to define freedoms so that we could “know that closing our minds to these freedoms” was the correct way of acting.
My epiphany was that open-mindedness in the context of this thread requires lots of active energetic looking and evaluating of data. Like the way I thought before I became a Scientologist.
Not having any personal experiences with Sci or CoS, I cannot really comment on that specifically, but I have seen and experienced the same close-mindedness in other religious, political and social groups.
Usually they all function the same way : “We maintain the truth, the whole truth, nothing but etc. …” and judge, manipulate and push people around accordingly.
A norwegian writer once said that : “When lawyers and theologians assemble, then there is trouble ahead” with ref’s from anything from the catholic church to the Stalin-processes.
Let us all be aware !!!