Nature's seamlessness leaves no room for free will

One of the joys for me of maintaining this blog in good working order is also one of the frustrations.

I enjoy seeing what people think of my posts via the comments they leave on them. But frequently I'll be amazed at how a fairly simple idea, which I view as essentially unarguable, is twisted into complex knots by commenters who are so eager to maintain a belief, they ignore the facts I've presented.

Or, if the facts are recognized, they are shape-shifted into something other than what they actually are.

Now, I readily admit that I'm guilty at times of doing the same thing. All of us can become so attached to our personal perception of reality we'll bend over backwards, as well as forwards and sideways, to avoid being confronted with a viewpoint that challenges that perception.

Understand: I'm not calling for gullibility here. Or accepting a claim without good reason.

But when a good reason has been presented, and commenters on one of my posts sidestep that reason without confronting it head on, then I get frustrated at the lack of productive dialoging on this blog. Which obviously pertains to communications on the entire Internet. 

Communicating via episodic messages is much more difficult than communicating face-to-face, which is hard enough.

But hope springs eternal, as the saying goes.

So here's another try at convincing some commenters that the determinism espoused by Robert Sapolsky in the Determinism book he wrote about the illusion of free will deserves to be taken seriously, not discounted through wordplay that ignores the scientific reality of what supports Sapolsky's book.

In my previous post, I included a quote from his "Where Does Intent Come From?" chapter that included the word seamlessness, which I've boldfaced.

Why did that moment just occur? "Because of what came before it." Then why did that moment just occur? "Because of what came before that," forever isn't absurd and is, instead, how the universe works. The absurdity amid this seamlessness is to think that we have free will and that it exists because at some point, the state of the world (or of the frontal cortex or neuron or molecule of serotonin...) that "came before that" happened out of thin air.

In order to prove there's free will, you have to show that some behavior just happened out of thin air in the sense of considering all these biological precursors. It may be possible to sidestep that with some subtle philosophical arguments, but you can't with anything known to science.

There's Sapolsky's challenge.

In his book he presents a vast amount of biological, psychological, sociological, anthropological, and neuroscientific research demonstrating how the human mind, and the behaviors emanating from those minds, are determined by chains of causes and effects.

If you disagree with Sapolsky, then you need to show, as he says, how some state of the world -- in this case the world of the human mind/behavior -- can happen out of thin air. Meaning, without a cause.

I see some commenters arguing that through meditation or other means of fostering greater self-awareness, people can become free of prior influences. Well, no, all that's happened is that other influences now are operating on the person's mind. 

I also see some commenters arguing that by carefully reasoning through some problem, an action can be taken that, though perhaps not worthy of being termed free will, is an act of agency. (Which is just a synonym for free will, in truth.) Well, no, all that's happened is that careful reasoning has become one of the deterministic causes of the action.

The problem is that pesky word, seamlessness. We humans love to imagine seams in the natural world. Miracles. God. Angels. The supernatural. Prophets. Mystical visions. ESP. Magic. And so on. And so on.

Even though there is no demonstrable evidence for any of these seams in the fabric of the natural world (maybe a zipper is a better image), for various reasons we love to conjure up realms that are free of the laws and constraints that govern our universe.

One of those realms is free will. It just feels so right, so correct, so true, that the self we envision residing inside our head can choose to do things, and to feel things, and to perceive things, that are beyond the determinism applying to everything else in the world.

That sensation of being someone special is intoxicating. Animals, plants, galaxies, molecules, all that other stuff is bound by natural laws, but we, me, I'm beyond this stuff, for I am free to will whatever I want.

Problem is, we aren't special. Not in reality. Just in our own minds. That's what Sapolsky means by seamlessness. The natural world contains no gaps, crevices, or openings where anything other than determinism (and quantum randomness) holds sway.

Again, if you don't agree, refute this contention by providing solid evidence of a seam.

I'll end with a quotation from the chapter in Sapolsky's book, "Willing Willpower: The Myth of Grit," that I finished reading this morning. Guess what (you have three guesses and the first two don't count) word I'm going to boldface.

We're pretty good at recognizing that we have no control over the attributes that life has gifted or cursed us with. But what we do with those attributes at right/wrong crossroads powerfully, toxically invites us to conclude, with the strongest of intuitions, that we are seeing free will in action.

But the reality is that whether you display admirable gumption, squander opportunity in a murk of self-indulgence, majestically stare down temptation or belly flop into it, these are all the outcome of the functioning of the PFC [prefrontal cortex] and the brain regions it connects to.

And that PFC functioning is the outcome of the second before, minutes before, millennia before. The same punch  line as in the previous chapter concerning the entire brain. And invoking the same critical word -- seamless. 

As we've seen, talk about the evolution of the PFC, and you're also talking about the genes that evolved, the proteins they code for in the brain, and how childhood altered the regulation of those genes and proteins.

A seamless arc of influences bringing your PFC to this moment, without a crevice for free will to lodge in.

OK, a final end, because this thought just came to mind. It strikes me as strange that some readers of this blog can be powerfully attracted to Oneness, a unity that underlies apparent differences, yet strongly object to the oneness espoused by Sapolsky where the universe is a seamless web of causes and effects that binds everything together into unity.

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

“I enjoy seeing what people think of my posts via the comments they leave on them. But frequently I'll be amazed at how a fairly simple idea, which I view as essentially unarguable, is twisted into complex knots by commenters who are so eager to maintain a belief, they ignore the facts I've presented. …Or, if the facts are recognized, they are shape-shifted into something other than what they actually are.”

“But when a good reason has been presented, and commenters on one of my posts sidestep that reason without confronting it head on, then I get frustrated at the lack of productive dialoging on this blog.”

“So here's another try at convincing some commenters that the determinism espoused by Robert Sapolsky in the Determinism book he wrote about the illusion of free will deserves to be taken seriously, not discounted through wordplay that ignores the scientific reality of what supports Sapolsky's book.”

----------

Forgive me, Brian, but that was completely unfair!

That’s simply dismissing summarily my carefully presented thoughts as merely wordplay, without actually engaging with them. That’s saying I’m ignoring what you’d presented, when it’s exactly the opposite that’s happening here. That’s accusing me of sidestepping the issue and of not facing the issue head-on, when again what’s actually the case here is, it seems to me, exactly the opposite! And that’s accusing me of going to great lengths to somehow continue to maintain some belief, when I’ve clearly spelt out that that’s not the case, and when in fact it is expressly not the case at all I assure you. Like I said to you, I’ve zero vested interest in this, and will be just as happy to be clearly shown to be wrong, as to be proved right, in as much as either will make for better understanding on my part.

And I’m not sure why you want to convince me of anything. Isn’t it far more reasonable to simply engage with the discussion, and have it lead to whatever conclusion it leads to, and to clearly acknowledge that no matter what; rather than starting with some conclusion already in mind, and only wanting to convince me of the correctness of that conclusion? I’m sorry, but if in this instance there is any lack of productive dialoging, then I don’t see how you can possibly turn this over and lay that on me.

For the third time, my apologies for calling this out clearly like this! But it would have been intellectually dishonest of me, and completely craven of me, if I were to refrain from doing that simply because of the high esteem in which I hold you and out of respect for the great deal I’ve learned from you.

…But hey, not a big deal, at all, as far as I’m concerned! I do take these discussions very seriously indeed, why else would I invest so much time and energy over them: but it isn’t as if I’m wedded to either side of the disagreement. This will make no difference at all to the regard I hold you in, or to my participation here as far as other subjects you might bring up here.

And even as far as the free will question, I’ll continue to follow the discussions you present here with the greatest interest, and remain completely open to changing my mind should the discussion so warrant, and indeed ask out aloud if there’s any particular specific points on which I might need clarification. …However, as far as specifically these objections and doubts, that I’ve raised here more than once in the past, and have now very clearly articulated in my last few comments (and particularly the very last one); and indeed further instances of direct disagreement with you when it comes to the free will question: well, after this I’ll refrain completely from raising them here again.

[Ron E.]

Seamless, a nice way to point out that: - “The natural world contains no gaps, crevices, or openings where anything other than determinism (and quantum randomness) holds sway.”

The natural world (including us) is wholesome and perfect; it may be cruel or brutal to our eyes sometimes but that is the way evolution has proceeded, and it undoubtedly works. Where we humans are concerned, we have strong desires to reject the realities of the natural circles of birth, life and death by imposing abstract thinking upon it.

It seems to me that such thinking is derive from our fears, insecurities, desires and wishes. It is instinctively natural to avoid pain and danger and to gravitate toward pleasures and security but we have taken it to extraordinary lengths by introducing Gods, souls, spirits, heavens etc. to assuage such fears. It may have been necessary long ago in order to explain fearful forces of nature, yet still we support such thinking – are we then still so primitively inclined?

We have further separated ourselves from the realities of the natural world by imagining our-selves to have a separate self, tantamount to a soul, that is independent of the physical body/brain organism. We then proceed to invest much of who/what we are (our identities) onto such abstract entities that any threat or challenge to them is often felt as more threatening than a threat to the physical organism.

This to me is the whole crux of the matter as to why we choose to believe in a self, soul or some such entity that has free will that can survive death and so on. It is all so tied up with our identities. The contents that make up our identities is varied. The contents can be of family, culture, religion, nationality, creed or dogma – any belief or thought system that provides a basis to give our lives a sense of permanence and specialness.

The free will concept subsequently arises from the assumption of the assumed specialness of the thought constructed self.

[um]

@ RON E.

Culture is and artificial abstract replica of nature. Humans use the same tools and means to operate in nature in order to survive in culture.

Every living creature is "made" responsible for its own survival, so, some notion, some awareness of an "I" must be there to exercise that responsibility.

It seems that humans can separate themselves from the activities of the tools to exercise that responsibility ... he can "pauze" for a moment in operating the tank he is operating, stop driving the machine, stop looking outside stop doing his job and have some coffee. Sitting there with his mug of coffee, gazing in the darkness and emptiness and silence he might ponder all sorts of questions .. as what the heck he is doing ... and if done long enough he might to start to hallucinate ... hahaha

[Sant64]

"Unarguable." Jeez....

How many times do I have to post this?

MOST PHILOSOPHERS ARE NOT HARD DETERMINISTS.

And for sure, an even greater percentage of philosophers DO NOT see this topic as "unarguable."

What do most philosophers believe on this topic of the will?

Look it up if you don't believe me (and clearly you don't, or you simply don't read what I write).
Most philosophers favor compatibilism. Compatibilism is the consensus. Hard determinism is the minority opinion.

Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents when, in the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires.

So please save yourself from frustration. Sapolsky and Breer's opinions on free will are not shared by most philosophers. That being the case, don't blame those of us who don't accept hard determinism as a settled science.

[Brian Hines]

Appreciative Reader, I responded to you on another post about free will. I'll copy in that comment below. I suspect that we agree almost totally about the illusion of free will.

If you accept, as I do, Sapolsky's inarguable contention that from what we know about reality, there is no room for free will in our deterministic universe (chaos theory is deterministic, as Sapolsky says in a chapter I read today), then the only discussion is how determinism functions in the human brain/body. And that's a very big discussion indeed, of course. Naturally I agree with you that we have the capacity to reason through decisions in sophisticated ways. That's one way of deciding things, among many others.

Sant64, compatibilism is adored by philosophers rather than scientists/neuroscientists because it is a word game approach to free will. "Yes, our choices and actions are determined, but if those choices and actions aren't physically or otherwise coerced, let's say that this form of free will is compatible with determinism." Sure, but now actual free will as ordinary humans conceive of it -- the ability to choose without being constrained by prior causes and influences -- isn't how those philosophers conceive of it. Sapolsky ridicules compatibilism, as do I, because it is simply a way to rescue a form of free will will from scientific reality.

Here's the comment on the other post, Appreciative Reader.
-----------------------
I'm sorry that you were upset that I referred to your position on "agency" in my recent blog post as not understanding what Sapolsky is saying. But that's the truth. You admit that you chose to use that term, "agency," in a way that isn't used by Sapolsky and other writers on free will, since agency is viewed as synonymous with free will.

If you use words in a unique way, you should expect to run into problems when discussing some subject. What you seem to mean by "agency" is using reason and other methods of mental consideration to arrive at a choice between alternatives. OK, but as I've noted to you, that's just a case of determinism. If you'd said "choice" or "ability to choose" rather than "agency," I wouldn't have objected to your statements.

That said, I should have been more aware that you don't understand much about Sapolsky's views aside from what I've shared in my blog posts, which is a small fraction of his sophisticated arguments. I knew that Sapolsky had said in the early chapters of his book that experiments dealing with when and how we choose, as in the Libet research, don't prove the illusion of free will. So you were beating a dead horse in your second lengthy comment. But since you thought the horse was alive, since you haven't read Sapolsky's book, I should have realized this.

Please understand that I have a lot going on in my life, as we all do, and I only read and respond to comments at certain times of the day. So like I said, this makes having a productive dialog via comments difficult. Misunderstandings are bound to occur. I always enjoy your comments a lot, so keep on doing what you're doing: writing intelligent well-reasoned comments. I'd simply suggest using generally accepted terms as much as possible, since it was your unique usage of "agency" that first set off alarm bells in my mind.

[777]

As long one doesn't believe / understand
that we live in a totally quantum enttanglement cosmos

where each Soul is 110% God The Creator HERSELF in voluntary
mega total amnesia
with no serendipities at all or filled with them, . .

you cannot see or discuss the above
Many scientists and super Qubits computers
do confirm
It makes also clear that
Love will do it all
It always did

It the Fibonacci structure
The tiny, the humble will gloriously sit on a Throne they don t even want

777

[Ron E.]

Yes, we are free to choose but only through the constraints of all that we have ever experienced. Every experience we ever had enters the neural networking of the brain forming the basis of memory. From such memories (past experiences) choices arise in response to prevailing situations.

We cannot perform an action or have thoughts that we have not previously experienced. You cannot think of a ‘noegip’ because you have not experienced such a thing; but reverse the wording to spell out ‘pigeon’ and you immediately comprehend from past experience.

We can change our thinking and actions by taking on board new information, but such new information has to enter our heads and be processed. Information, whether a few seconds ago or many years ago becomes part of the repertoire of experience and knowledge to draw upon as situations demand. Such thinking and actions can give the impression of a free will.

Is there an antidote, a way of realising the reality of there being no free will – and indeed, come to that, a way of recognising the illusory nature of many accepted cognitive phenomenon? Science is obviously a large part of the answer. Also, according to some, it can be discovered by ourselves through paying attention to what thoughts arise in the moment enabling recognition of their origins.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi 777
You wrote:
"As long one doesn't believe / understand
that we live in a totally quantum enttanglement cosmos

where each Soul is 110% God The Creator HERSELF in voluntary
mega total amnesia
with no serendipities at all or filled with them, . .

you cannot see or discuss the above
Many scientists and super Qubits computers
do confirm
It makes also clear that
Love will do it all
It always did

It the Fibonacci structure
The tiny, the humble will gloriously sit on a Throne they don t even want"

True true true..

Ron E.
You wrote:
"Yes, we are free to choose but only through the constraints of all that we have ever experienced. Every experience we ever had enters the neural networking of the brain forming the basis of memory. From such memories (past experiences) choices arise in response to prevailing situations."

Who knows what novel triggers the interaction of all forces in the brain will yield? They will yield new experiences, if we are open to them.

And there are the hidden, unconscious things within each of us we aren't yet aware of. As we become aware of them, we expose ourselves to new things we had never experienced before, but completely built into us from day 1.

So, true also...understood correctly.

[Spence Tepper]

If you understand, from the perspective of a mystic, that all things have already happened, and we are just living through the playing out of this blue ray disc called reality, then, of course, all is entirely deterministic.

And yet when you watch how things interact, you realize how closely tied they are to what came before, and how easily they can be adjusted. In the moment, incredible power of will to make change. But out of the moment, nearly impossible.

So, let's use our tiny attention entirely focused on the moment, and the Oneness of all things. There we can find greater understanding, and that automatically leads to behavior change, and greater freedom.

Very simple.

Some are indeed free. Others enslaved. Free will only refers to those who are free of negative influence, free to act from positive influence.

But in the single moment, we are all free to do that.

Time is the oppressor if you think of cause and effect. But the moment carries no time at all. And all potential.

[777]

Hi Spence

I m not amazed You know because U hear The Anahabad Shabad

I have utmost admiration for the "Word" with >>> 9^9^9^9^9 IQ & EQ
that created all thzez is and find so nice
that there is no other to complain than our own Soul

An "alternative" of "It never happened" is
The only thing that's real is our OWN "experience"
and every thing else is "artifact'

better laugh such true thoughts out , to prevent arrogance, I confess

Like Swami JI on the last page of Tek Puri's book
" ; . . . and even this I said , is totally hypocritical"

See U next life like most users here

777

[Spence Tepper]

Hi 777!
Yes, Newton described, in Calculus, all reality as an infinite series of discrete points along a static timeline of discrete moments. A static timeline, where each point carries no time. Mathematically, they could all just be cards in a deck shuffled anyway you like. Their sums will be the same. In quantum mechanics, there is only likelihood, but in some ways infinite options exist in each moment.

How does an infinite series of time-less points constitute time? They are unconnected, discrete. Yet how are they ordered in this series? At exactly what point does one thing actually cause another? Precisely? It starts in the state of not causing. And then in another instant, it is the cause. There is nothing connecting them, and nothing at all can pass through one moment to another. They are entirely independent, upon close examination.

When Newton was asked to explain it, he simply said "I frame no hypothesis." I have no explanation.

It's when you cannot perceive of it as a whole, but must filter through an infinitesimal, one dimensional string, there you see moment by moment, cause and effect. Cause and Effect exist because we can only perceive, here, in one linear dimension of time, in one plodding direction.

But there is no reason to presume each moment must follow another, except that this is the way we perceive. It is the quality of our own consciousness, as you say. No one else to blame.

When we go back, all future and past are gone. But all we know is that point that we are now reliving. And so with the future. We awaken here with memory of the past and only hope for the future, into this moment. And it is gone on to the next. Everything but this very moment is just memory or conjecture. Time is our perception of it, and as biological organisms, we don't perceive all that well, though we have several different timeclocks built in, not all of them properly synchronized to each other.

How many times have we been through this very same moment?
We would never know, as part of it. As experiencing through a consciousness wedded to it, expressed from it.

Time can run backwards or sideways, depending on how we see it. But what is clear is that every moment is entirely independent. We think we can't jump to a moment already lived nor to one not yet experienced. But that is only because once we arrive, it is all we can know.

How can cause and effect, even determinism exist when each point of time is discrete and static?

it can't.

But as part of the system, we can know nothing else. What appears seamless isn't. It's an infinite series of entirely discrete, separate moments.

However, as witnesses, we aren't actually part of it. And therein lies the basis for our potential freedom...That we already, actually, are.

[777]

Yes
Who cannot explain GRAVITY
cannot grep free will

from
NO Free will at all
to
We don't even exist

is a tiny step

There are some scientists trying to prove
we are a computer simulation on
YT
like the matrix movie and an even better one
inception (comes up slowly in my mind )

777

Each day more clear that the ONLY EXIT
- that is "know who U are -
is LOVE
Love for One that exited already by Love

PS2
Are Brian and Co thinking :
"If I m wrong and 777 is right, I have still Charan's initiation promise .?

Yes, but like the CREATOR GOD at the start of creations . . . HE didn't give
a time schedule
Some seconds or some big bangs ( the new BB of 15 B. years )
So to Love a little bit, . . . might be more comfortable

777

[Ron E.]

These last few comments show how complicated the human thinking process makes of the simple seamless reality of the natural world - of which we are a part, and, has the tendency to lead us into a mire of fantasticle thinking.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi 777
You wrote:
"Who cannot explain GRAVITY
cannot grasp free will"

Elegant. Newton said he could not explain it..He could only describe how it works.

Einstein found new properties, but was unable to find what the mechanisms were underneath those properties.

Hi Ron E.
You wrote:
"These last few comments show how complicated the human thinking process makes of the simple seamless reality of the natural world - of which we are a part, and, has the tendency to lead us into a mire of fantasticle thinking."

The more you understand of the "natural world", the more you see of the "natural" world the more unnatural and fantastic it becomes. What you see becomes what you want to see. And what you want to see becomes what you see.

So long as you don't question anything, it's all a nice seamless perfection.

But start looking carefully, calmer, deeper, within yourself, and within every moment of this "natural" world, and you will begin to see huge inconsistencies. Those must be you, right? Must be perceptual flaws, right?

You will learn that your one-pointed perspective is largely manufactured by your brain from perceptual inputs, and modified heavily. It isn't a very solid or comprehensive picture of reality at all.

Hold tightly to your version of reality. It's just one version, has lots of blind spots, leaves out a lot of real people and real "natural" reality, but at least it's consistent, and you can hold it and own it like an object.

But materialism has never explained the deeper questions of why it works as it does. Materialism is reductionism taken to extremes and has never concluded in taking another, deeper look.

Materialism is based on a huge assumption, that the "natural" reality you speak of is a closed system.

That has never been proven.

And materialism must ignore so many things Science has discovered is absolutely real.

The universe is not seamless. It is discrete. You only perceive it as seamless as a limitation the brain has and imposes so you can deal with reality one tiny grain at a time. That is the fantastical perceptual augmentation of the human brain. Much of what you think is seamless your brain put there for you to see. Look carefully and you will find that your brain doesn't do such a great job replicating things seamlessly moment by moment. You have to be largely asleep to accept what it presents as "natural" and the total picture. No scientist does that.

When you can't actually see time pass, it all looks seamless...Stuff just appears to happen. What caused it? Of course it's the "natural" explanation of whatever culture and time you happen to be living in.

Some thinkers ages ago claimed that thing A caused thing B. They could only prove it by the contiguity of events seen, and later recorded, in discrete moments of time. And that was a very hard sell, quite unnatural to many others. The others thought God did it, not gravity, not light, not tectonic shifts or fluctuating air masses.

Yes, stick with your "natural" view. It works for you. But if you have seen something else, naturally, you begin to move away, into that fantastical world that turns out to be another slice of reality. And then you see that two different views can be so.

[Spence Tepper]

Ron,
While we're on the subject of Fantastical Thinking, and its connection to reality, let me add something more to tip the scales into even greater fantasy that is also greater reality. It comes from Meditation Practice.

Focus on anything compelling for a time, every day. Put your entire attention on it calmy, dispassionately, but as fully as you can. Don't enter into the thought. Don't direct the thought. Just contemplate it symbolically, as a static subject. Every day.

In weeks you will change the world. The world, as you know it, will change. To you. You will hop over to a reality (of the infinite matrices of realities) closer to the subject of your focused thought.

Not saying you will get what you want. Can't be about desire. Just where you place your dispassionate focused attention. No emotion, just thought.

You will find one day, in one aha moment, one Zen awakening, the reality around you is mysteriously more aligned to the subject of your focused thought. Might bring tragedy closer to you, or balance...but these will be observable external events.

You will hear new songs on the radio about it you never heard before. You will see new political events directly affected by it and addressing it. Your own relatives will be touched by it. Your job assignment will be altered visibly by it. New books being sold will have it as the subject.

But no one will recall, except you, that everything was slightly different just the day before.

Reality hasn't actually changed. You have moved from one to the other on the pure basis of your consistent and focused attention.

So, here's the rub. You won't know it, unless you get really good at this. Those changes will all appear "natural" and you will not remember things any other way. Unless this is part of your meditation practice. Then you will become silently astounded by the reality everyone else takes for granted. A non-seamless event has occurred, and like gravity waves, it has affected everything.

Did you really pick the subject of focus? Or did it pick you? Was it actually just a natural next step for you?

When you hop from one reality to another, even your memories, your body, everything is now part of that "seamless" and natural reality, that is just a couple of discrete and visible grains closer to what you have been focusing on.

You have to become a very, very careful and quiet observer of reality to watch this happen. You have very, very little power over it. But you do have some...and it is all in the level of focus and persistence of your own attention.

And then, of course, you now must be extremely careful of your thoughts.

[Ron E.]

Spence, your problem is you imagine you know when other people don't. I could write reams (as you do) on all my years of meditation practice to try and prove l have arrived or enlightenment as you often mention but know the egotistical outcomes of such.
You could learn humility and compassion from other people and particularly from a grateful appreciation of nature.
Just relax your overactive thinking mind and live life as it is presented.

[Ron E]

And Spence, while you are more concerned with putting your brand of spiritually over, you risk missing the beauty of other people and the real beauty and wonder of the actual, natural world - which is not the mystical so-called natural mind-created world you espouse.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Ron!
You wrote:
"you risk missing the beauty of other people and the real beauty and wonder of the actual, natural world - which is not the mystical so-called natural mind-created world you espouse."

They are part of the same thing...whatever goes on in a person's head.

I'm not a thought policeperson.

All sinners welcome here.

[777]

True Spence
The queste for non thoughts

Ramana : To know God You have to be Him

Astounding
that this is possible
777

[um]

A painter can paint a painting, with whatever motivation he has and whatever meaning and value he attributes to his work.

Those that see his work, do their own job in attributing meaning and value.

Eventually after the painter has walked the whole traject of "becoming an good' painter" to the greater glory of himself and after going through the traject of discussions with others about what he painted and how it was seen, had to be seen, he will give up and break the mental ties with others.

From then on he knows, he is a painter, he knows what he is able too and what not , he no longer uses his skills to the greater glory of himself, ...from then on he will ponder how he can use his skills to please others, het becomes a servant.

a humble servant ... that does not brag about love

[manjit]

Hi Brian, you wrote: "It strikes me as strange that some readers of this blog can be powerfully attracted to Oneness, a unity that underlies apparent differences, yet strongly object to the oneness espoused by Sapolsky where the universe is a seamless web of causes and effects that binds everything together into unity.".

I have to be honest, I haven't been following the recent "illusion of free will" blogs you've posted, just scanned the title and quickly filed through some of the comments. But, as somebody who has, several decades ago, spent many hours pondering over and studying the philosophical and scientific question of "free-will", I thought I'd share the perspective of someone you could say is "powerfully attracted to Oneness".

Before doing so, I thought I would read over this and your other recent post on Sapolsky's book to see what all the hoo-haa is about, as for once I am unfamiliar with your source, and see if he says anything even remotely unpredictable, or actually scientifically proving the "absence of free-will"...and lo and behold, what a surprise......absolutely nothing, zilch. Same old same old ideological belief and posturing. So here's my pre-formed response, completely unaffected and equally relevant even after reading your summary of his arguments:

It seems to me the entire scientific & philosophical argument against free-will can be summarised in 2 main threads of supporting argument:

1) The idea of something outside of matter, and hence cause and effect or determinism, is absurd because there is nothing other than matter as we humans perceive and experience it. This seems to be the main supporting "evidence" or philosophical argument against some intangible, "non-physical" thing having agency outside of these molecules and chemicals. This seems to essentially be Sapolsky's only argument, and that of several commentators here too.

Well, please excuse me if I find this pseudo-scientific argument no more persuasive than "there can be no dinosaur fossils because the Bible doesn't say dinos ever existed, therefore how could their fossils exist?!".

Sure, if you hold the ideological belief that physicalism or materialism explains everything, then there can be no free-will held by a non-physically-limited "self"....circular logic 101. Not too complex or difficult to understand. No need to keep banging on about it, imo.

The problem is, this IS a BELIEF, not a scientific fact by a long, long shot. It is one model amongst many, and one that's day is waning, imo. People are entitled to their metaphysical, or anti-metaphysical, beliefs, but wisdom comprises of understanding that it is just a belief, not some "viewing of reality as it is", which is a patently absurd claim to make by definition when abstractly & conceptually ascribing the "creation" of consciousness to the workings of the physical brain.

Two other points to note - Several commentators keep talking about how absurd it is that something non-physical can influence our choices.

Well, sorry to keep repeating myself, but there is already a huge elephant in this room, one that free-will can piggy-back on with not the slightest effort required. It is the forest which cannot be seen due to science's obsession with the trees. It is, of course, consciousness. It cannot be explained, it cannot be defined, it cannot even be located. Scientists are just as stumped by consciousness today as they were 100 years ago. More, actually.....they were certain they would have cracked it by now, but they're not even close to even getting a slippery handle on it. Pretty much what Sapolsky and several commentators here are saying makes free-will impossible also applies to consciousness, yet, yet.......PEEK-A-BOO, there it is! And boy oh boy is it glorious! From it many, many realms of physicals laws and sciences arise......;)

Also, to even reduce all life and consciousness to physicalism (totally unproven as that is), matter itself may not be deterministic anyway:

https://www.wondriumdaily.com/quantum-universe-fundamentally-probabilistic-not-deterministic/

2) The second argument thread, and only thing even remotely approaching scientific evidence as opposed to ideological wishful thinking, is the Libet experiments, and numerous variations thereof.

Well, how staggeringly weak the evidence must be, then. The Libet experiment has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and crumbles under even the slightest scrutiny. It is the equivalent of a child's first attempt at creating an experiment, which highlights how weak the evidence is

Firstly, it was conducted with meaningless, insignificant "choices". We all know - and we are currently seeing it in the West right now - that we can live large chunks of our lives on autopilot, without the appearance of making any conscious choices at all, just drifting under the influence of worldly events. That doesn't mean we aren't able to, under other circumstances, re-exert control and choice. I liken it to riding a bicycle....we can let go of the steering bars and just cruise, seemingly with no control......that doesn't mean we can't put our hands back on the steering wheel and re-exert control if a dangerous situation occurs. Likewise with "free-will" and "choices".....we can make them unconsciously, or consciously. The Libet experiment only dealt with inconsequential, "cruising" choices.

Secondly, even if it is the "unconsciousness" which makes "choices", as claimed to be measured by Libet, just who said the "unconscious" isn't the "self" too? We have no idea what "self" or "consciousness" is, so it is absurd to pretend we do and say whatever it is that made those inconsequential choices without conscious awareness isn't part of the "self" too.

And, lastly, even science is increasingly aware that it is unlikely that it is "free-will" being measured by Libet's experiments, but instead "readiness potential". I of course posted all this in my post just a day or two before Brian's recent bout of no-free-will proselytism, which contained links to various scientific articles stating this. I posted that due to recent scientific news on free-will and scientific research. I can't recall what that original link was, but here's versions of the news story, and another relevant one I found:

https://neurosciencenews.com/libet-free-will-23756/

https://scitechdaily.com/does-free-will-exist-new-study-challenges-classic-libet-experiments/

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/01/new-brain-research-supports-free-will/

(all articles from this year).

So, despite the ideological certainty of several here, it should be obvious to, errrm, "free" thinkers that if even the scientific experts and philosophers in the field don't know, they for sure as shit don't "know" :)

The above said, I have no real interest in arguing any of this anymore. People are entitled to come to their own conclusions, their own BELIEFS. It made me chuckle to see some of the terminology being used......I used to know all this intimately, but having gone through a conscious process of forgetting, I balk at what I now consider the emptiness and banality of such language in attempting to describe REALITY AS IT IS.

I bothered responding to this post as the perspective of one "powerfully attracted to Oneness". And it's funny, because nowadays I have no real affinity or interest in Indian metaphysical systems of beliefs, or alas any of the no-doubt many great "mystics" and experiencers from within that tradition. I just have no interest or recognition of the limited, conceptual metaphysics of that tradition anymore, despite being birthed within and being obsessed by it for large parts of my childhood. That said, I truly cannot think of a better quote on the argument of free-will Vs determinism than the great master of the Advaita tradition, Ramana Maharshi's. His words very accurately describe my thoughts based on my own "non-dual" experiences, and I have not heard any argument or philosophy which surpasses it:

"19. Arguments about destiny and free-will are carried on by those who have not realized. Those who have, are free from both. . ." Verse 19, 40 Verses on Reality. Ramana Maharshi

I, myself, do not believe in determinism OR free-will. I find the question nonsensical. An intellectual or conceptual mirage.

Just like the question of whether light is a wave or a particle....in reality it is neither/both/either/language cannot explain.

Brian almost stumbles on this....he states the "self" is an illusion. Then argues free will is an illusion. But then in this post:

https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2023/09/alan-watts-the-whole-universe-is-at-work-in-every-thought-and-action.html

Brian states "what we call "our" will actually is the will of the entire universe, a view that I find both scientifically correct and emotionally inspiring.".

Well fucking aye! It took you long enough to get there! So, if we no longer associate our "self" with the limited, physical bodies that we have, but rather the "entire universe", does it not follow our new, expanded "self" does have "free-will"?

PEEK-A-BOO!!

Which brings me to the 2nd reason I posted here on this subject - Brian writes, and his sentiments are echoed by several commentators, that "The problem is that pesky word, seamlessness. We humans love to imagine seams in the natural world. Miracles. God. Angels. The supernatural. Prophets. Mystical visions. ESP. Magic. And so on. And so on.........Even though there is no demonstrable evidence for any of these seams in the fabric of the natural world "

Well, firstly, to put to bed the factually untrue lie that there is no "demonstrable evidence for any of these", here's just a tip of the huge, massive iceberg of evidence available:

https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references

A small fraction of the evidence available.

As for the claim these phenomena are "seams" in the natural world, I can agree for THESE commentators, it may well appear as a break in the fabric of reality to experience any of these phenomena. However, for others they ARE a "seamless" part of the fabric of their everyday experience, and for THEM it would be a "break" from reality to STOP experiencing these.....indeed there are entire societies that are based on the acceptance of such "realities", and they themselves claim, for example, they could not survive in the rainforest without such experiences.

It is abundantly clear that rather than discussing the nature of the fabric of reality ITSELF, these commenters like Brian are actually discussing the contours of their own limited experience of "reality". Very, very obvious..... ;)

Rather than thinking of "seamless reality", as if "reality" is the same of everyone, I think it more revealing and insightful to think of the limited, contained, narrow reality-box or tunnel that we may live in, and remain humble, open-minded and respectful as to what can exist outside of it. But to each their own reality, limited or not as it may be.

SHALOM / SALAAM