On 26 Aug, 11:04, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Really? That seems to stand as evidence of MY argument. Where does
> > your presumed 'free will' go when you do something you wished you
> > hadn't?
>
> Heh wrong end of the stick I'm afraid old bean. I said that we all do
> things that we do not wish to do. Not that we have all done things
> that we wished we had not.
>
Simple time difference. if we are doing something we don't wish to
do, once we have done it, we have done something we wished we hadn't.
The time-frame is relative and doesn't alter the concept of whether
there was a choice involved. If you do that (things you don't wish to
do) a lot, you may wonder why. The exact details would take volumes
to explain but the simple truth is, you had no choice.
> > Or you are discovering that different conditions compel different
> > reactions. That's hardly surprising and doesn't support 'choice' in
> > any way.
>
> Sorry sir that also is not what I mean. When you inveriably reply to
> this post you will no doubt careful choose the words you wish to
> make. Each and every word you use you will think about prior to
> typeing it, this is you choosing. What compels you say, perhaps 'It
> is not so' rather than 'No, things are not like that'?
>
> Both mean the same, so where is the compusion?
>
The compulsion might derive on whether I feel one might be less (or
more) offensive to the reader. And that, in turn, requires reflection
and loads of presumptions that would be impossible to trace out.
>
>
>
>
> > > I have often used the sandwhich experiment to show free will, and I
> > > still stick by that principle. Make two sandwhiches, one you love one
> > > you do not like, and then choose to eat one, or both or none. Choice
> > > is there and yes I suppose an agrument for determinism could be
> > > posited, I would say that unless one can show each and every action
> > > that leads to a specific outcome then such an argument is based on
> > > faith rather than empircal knowledge.
>
> > False premiss! The crux comes at the point of action. You can
> > either perform "A" or "B", you cannot perform "A or B" (and the "A and
> > B" choice is really either "A then B" or "B then A"). There can only
> > ever be one event at any given time and place. Your 'hypothetical'
> > sandwiches will be eaten in one of three ways but at no time, can you
> > erase one action and replace it with another. All you do is part of
> > the continuous series of actions/reactions that drive the universe
> > forward.
>
> Ahh Pat I'm afraid my grasp on that sort of logic is pretty bad, you
> may have to find another way to explain it, that loks too much like
> maths to me, and my brain does funny things when ever I see that kind
> or formula written. Which is anothe way of saying that I have yet to
> discover a coping mechinism in order for my eyes to see and my brain
> to translate exaclty what that means.
>
> I wil say this though, and I have probably got your meaning entirly
> wrong but here goes. Choice A, eat the bacon sandwhich, choice B eat
> the banana sandwhich. What of choice C eat both, or D eat none, or
> choices E and F which are about the order of eating both of them?
>
The gist is you can only perform 1 of your choices not some
combination and there is no going back to redo and overwrite history.
There are no loopbacks in the premiss, so there is no chance of any of
them upsetting the arrow of time through space.
> > > If this nature cannot be said to be fixed, then perhaps as I suspect
> > > it is in a state of flux and we can make very real changes to it as
> > > Alaster Crowley would have it, in accordance with our will.
>
> > Ahh, but Crowley was insistent that one could not 'Do what thou wilt'
> > until one had achieved knowledge and conversation with one's Holy
> > Guardian Angel, which is a way of saying that one needs to determine
> > what one's TRUE WILL (we've been calling it one's 'nature') is. And,
> > of course, that dictum came with the caveat that "Love is the Law,
> > Love under Will." That is, Love needs to be the basis (thus the
> > 'under') for one's true will.
>
> Yes indeed he did say that, but that has no relation that I can see to
> my point. Going back to the bullying and in this context. I saw that
> my bullying was unethical, I choose in accordance with my will to not
> be a bully, I found ways to live as a non bully. Have I then changed
> my nature in accordance with my will?
>
> Damn you man scratch that paragraph, I have just seen that it does
> indeed back up what you say, and was in fact relevant. I'll leave it
> in for sake of transparencey and intelectual honesty though.
>
Cool!!
> > > >Not necessarily. There could be a gun to your head each time and
> > > > you are buggering, as it were, for your life and it has nothing to do
> > > > with one's sexuality.
>
> > > Yet if there was not?
>
> > You could have some other reason. We could go on endlessly with
> > hypotheticals. Are there any real examples we could discuss?
>
> Well thats the point Pat, there could be many reasons, and I say
> unless we can nail every single one of them down then we can't claim
> for sure that it is due to determinism rather than choice, to do so is
> claim based upon faith.
>
And to waste time nailing them all down is just that, a waste of
time. Let me save you that time...belive what I'm saying. ;-)
> > > > Unless there's a gun to your head or some other stimulus that
> > > > temporarily overrides your sexuality nature by the drive to survive
> > > > (or protect loved ones, etc.). We don't read the lines until they've
> > > > been drawn.
>
> > > So we can therefore make temporary changes to our nature?
>
> > No, you discover that another aspect of your nature kicks-in and
> > overrides the other part. No change but, perhaps, a new, internal
> > revelation OF one's nature.
>
> Yet you used the phrase 'temporarily overrides your sexuality nature'
> you did not mean this then? You meant instead undiscoverd part of
> your nature?
>
Yes. However, it may appear to the individual (with little
reflection) that it was a temporary override, thus allowable. We
justify all our acts internally based on what data we have at the
time. New data, later, may make us wish we'd had THAT data before.
But, in those cases, acceptance is the key.
> > > This is interesting Pat although does it not suggest that once this
> > > knowledge is gained then stagnation is bound to occour, if as you say
> > > that ones perception of oneself leads to certian actions, then certian
> > > knowledge of this kind must lead to certian actions being performed.
>
> > > Umm I'm not sure I like where this philosophy may lead.
>
> > Nope. But this is what spiritual maturity is all about. There WILL
> > BE growing pains. But to ignore facts simply because we don't like
> > them is worse than ignorance.
>
> Sorry Pat you missunderstood my point there. In essance this
> philosophy denies choice, then there really is no morality, we are not
> culpable for any of our actions. This is not a denial of truth, it is
> a dislike for the inevitiblity of where such a philosophy leads.
>
Yup! Me too. But I'm not so wrapped up in 'what I'd like to believe'
that I'll forsake the truth to prefer a lie. Morality is a tool for
getting along with others. Yet, there is only One. What Morality
does One need? I feel this take on reality is the step that will lead
us into a more socially aware society. You (and many others) forget
that one thing that falls out of this is that all that which exists is
equally vital to the whole. So, by this reckoning, the homeless
person has equal status as 'the leader of the Free World' purely
because he exists. This forces us to acknowledge the right of
existing humans to 'be the best they can be'. And all existing humans
should endeavour to foster one another such that we can all be the
best we can be. Rather than focus on the losses, look at the gains.
I'm not saying don't look at the losses, but weigh them WITH the
gains.
My line of thinking will be rejected by many. Of course. But truth
isn't a numbers game and the majority, who would prefer to retain
falsehood (belief in free will is like belief in Santa) as their
truth, will fight to the bloody end before they give it up.
Unfortunately, this will cause a form of apocalypse. I would 'prefer'
to avoid that, but I can't do that alone. And the retention of
differing flat-Earth views of the future is what is going to pit one
mob against another. Eventually, though, there will come an
individual who can explain it (and, perhaps demonstrate it) better
than I can. But I have to lay down the groundwork upon which to
build.
> > > > We can pit those results against our set of
> > > > 'preferred/desired outcomes' and formulate the causes for what action
> > > > we will take. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to discover
> > > > one's true nature if one had no memory of previous actions.
>
> > > Now that is just confussing, bearing in mind all that you have said
> > > prior. It seems to suggest that action does indeed define nature?
>
> > Well, there's an aspect of that, in that your parents' actions led to
> > your nature coming into existence.
>
> Actions that they had no choice in performing?
Correct. You exists in spacetime. Because space-time contains all of
space and time, you have always existed in your place and time (and
always will!!). This is that time. You, my friend, were inevitable,
and your existence (together with the geometry of space-time) proves
that.
>
>
> > > > Then note
> > > > that there are some people who lose memory and are in just that kind
> > > > of situation. One thing's for sure, though, no one ELSE is required
> > > > when determining one's own true nature, as it represents our
> > > > relationship to God/the One and not our more tenuous relationships
> > > > with 'others'.
>
> > > Heh I almost agreed with that, until I rememberd Iknokar. God is
> > > prevalant throughout the creation, dualism is an illusion there is no
> > > seperate you and I, only the One. Yet it is indeed a handy illusion
> > > to have huh.
>
> > There are uses for it, yes, but one should understand that God is
> > One without unity. That is, unity implies a uniting of things into
> > one, but this One is completely one and is not a unity. How that One
> > manifests itself completely upto IT. We are just as illusory as is
> > dualism. Thus Jesus' line of "I and the Father are one." He
> > understood the relationship and many of his sayings make FAR more
> > sense given a space-time continuum and its philosophical implications.-
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
