--- In [email protected], "wayback71" <wayback71@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
> > <anartaxius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A selfish act seems to imply will.
> >
> > The decision to consider the one-pointed pursuit of
> > enlightenment the highest goal in life seems to imply will.
> >
> > > If you do not believe in free will, and were that belief
> > > true, then the idea of a self that can be selfish has no
> > > sense.
As Wayback points out well below, I will take a similar whack at it, one acts
according to their "nature". A selfish person will generally act selfish. They
can only not act selfish/dickish unless the thought occurs to them (possibly
from feedback from others) to act in nondickish ways. When then, ones mental
nature will determine if one pursues that "insight". They have no free-will to
not act dickish until they learn through experience, reasoning, intuition, life
feedback that their are alternatives. And over time the DP finds more
fulfilling ways of living than pure dickhood. One acts according to their
nature. And part of our natures is to explore, learn, find ways and things that
appear to bring greater happiness, clarity and good times. A DP cann't help but
be dickish, but also can't help evaluating the feedback he gets -- even if its
subconscious.
Generally, you have no free will not to enjoy greater happiness. There is no
choice. One only goes for the number three door if they feel it will increase
their overall happiness and fulfillment. Values play a big role in determining
what we think / feel will bring us greater happiness -- why we choose the
number three door and not number one. A masochist has a value framework such
that inflicting pain on oneself is seen to be a field of greater happiness.
>>>And if one did have will, but chose not to exercise
> > > it, having a subjective experience one did not will to
> > > describe to the outer world, or to do so, would still not
> > > be a selfish act.
> >
> > Exactly. In a universe devoid of free will, the selfish get
> > off Scot-free for being selfish. That's why I think some
> > of them selfishly choose not to believe in free will. :-)
> >
There are (at least) two dimensions to this. You focus on only one. On can only
act according to their nature. That is not being scot-free. There are
consequences to our actions. Life provides abundant feedback. It is also our
nature to learn, adapt, seek even better ways to be happy. So the selfish have
no option in the short-run to be dickish. Longer run, as life feedback and
internal processing of that occurs, more pathways arise. One will flow towards
the path of least resistance towards perceived greater happiness.
> > > Turq writes. He says certain things. Sometimes he seems
> > > to take viewpoints opposite of what he wrote about before.
> > > He seems to imply he has a choice in what he does, and
> > > his flip flops are an expression of that choice.
> >
> > If they're not, then whoever or whatever the non-
> > freewillers think is running things is not really as
> > consistent as they think he/she/it is.
Again, you are missing the no-free will boat. (And you had no choice but to do
so, you perhaps gain happiness by missing boats -- or appearing to do so.
Enjoyment may be towards seeing peoples reactions to your missing boats -- who
knows.) Acting according to ones nature, acting towards greater happiness,
responding to life feedback does not premise or posit or require some he/she
running us like puppets.
> Try to imagine
> > the consternation of those who don't much like the
> > things I write but philosophically believe that God
> > is really writing it all. They must think that God is
> > a real dick to keep putting these words in my mouth. :-)
>
> Whoa, just a point to clarify here, since you and I have been down this road
> before. Just because I suspect that there might not be the free will it
> feels as if we have, does not mean I think God is conducting the symphony.
Precisely.
>I think it more likely that our responses that feel so considered and "free
>willish" are mostly automatic reactions to stimuli (all based on our brain
>structure, neurotransmittors, and prior experiences), and by the time our
>awareness picks up on the response, we have missed the millions of tiny
>automatic responses and and so assume our own free will - we - made the
>decision.
So much goes on below the surface. Who understands and "wills" their cells to
replicate in specific ways, their heart to beat, cells to form high functioning
organs, neurons to create vast networks, the response to neurotransmitters,
etc? We are the very tiny tip of the tail of the dog, yet we feel (strongly) we
are wagging the dog.
>God does not have to enter this equation, and I doubt that most "no free
>willers" here on FFL think that God is doing it all for us..
>
Correct. To think so would seem silly.
> Given your posts, which I enjoy even when I disagree and about which I think
> Xeno got it just perfectly right, this might mean you have a brain that
> enjoys trying on a variety of outlooks, enjoys humor and variety, gets a kick
> out of provoking sometimes, is creative, writes well. But, since it sure
> feels like you are doing it, take credit for it for as long as you can:-)
> >
Just thinking out loud ("Does the noise inside my head bother you?"), ones
self-worth often has to do with ones work, ones ability to make a difference,
to contribute, create, control. If one is solely acting according to their
nature, if one really is not the doer and decider,
where is the self-worth, the self-esteem? Clinging to doership is a self-esteem
tactic. Its holding on tight to feel in control. What is your self-worth if you
are simply wandering the universe according to your own nature, "taking it as
it comes". Its diminishing. Annhilating.
Could be a good thing. :)
> > > I do not always agree with what he says, but I have no
> > > evidence he even agrees with what he says.
> >
> > Well said. That's it exactly.
> >
Given that the premise is that writing is a way to explore an inner impulse, a
seed insight, a feeling, a yet to be articulated gestalt / grok of something,
agreeing with it is not particularly relevant, IMO.
The "thing" once articulated, may be seen to be worthless, or trivial. And
that's part of the learning experience. Or maybe, its initially seen to be
insightful, but after some feedback, one concludes, its not so useful.
And one can only believe according to ones nature. One is predisposed by ones
current nature (nature shape) to believe certain things. Confirmation bias is
an example. Agreement and belief has little to do with the truth value of
something. Letting go of belief, or keeping it berry berry simple, is not a
bad thing. Articulating a position, an inner flash, a vague vision, does not
make it true. I don't, I think most don't, believe everything that pops out of
their head. Like the internet, just because you found it "on your mind",
doesn't make it true. So not agreeing now, or in future with what one writes
appears more of a virtue, or a reality, than a flaw.
> > > He just says it, and in his writing characterises the
> > > ideas a certain way, with a certain slant, like the way
> > > a journalist writes. It is that characterisation that
> > > get people riled up here. It is a deliberate and effective
> > > technique.
> >
> > Bingo.
> >
> > > If I do not agree with him, that does not mean what I
> > > think is true either.
> >
> > Bingo again. In a universe without free will, some can
> > claim that overreacting to the things I write is not their
> > doing.
No one overreacts. You / others may perceive it a overreaction, because inside
your head it is over reaction. Inside the reactors head, its their nature. They
are simply reacting according to their nature here and now. (which may be FU,
but it is what it is).
>> They are prisoners to their karma or to the laws
> > of nature or to the will of God in this regard, and have
> > no choice *but* to overreact. Those on the forum who
> > have free will are able to read my stuff, take it or leave it,
Believing one has free will does not make it so. (yes, vice versa can also be
explored)
> > and move on without overreacting. They are free to read
> > the things I write without acting out the following famous
> > scenario.
If its not my current nature to react, I won't. If it is my nature, I will.
Just as you have little choice to write what you do, readers have little choice
to react the way they do.
>I think that ability alone is grounds for believing
> > in free will. :-)
Believe in whatever brings you greater happiness -- and then monitor the
results. Long run.
