--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@>
> wrote:
> >
> > This is really valuable information to know, that you (turquoiseb)
> > speak for the whole universe ('I think this is a pretty dismal
> > view of the universe and indicates that the universe ... doesn't
> > really think very much of them [the no-free-will adherents]').
>
> There was no attempt to "speak for the universe." I merely
> presented my opinion of what a universe that did not allow
> its supposedly-sentient beings to make decisions for them-
> selves might think of them. I don't even believe that the
> universe *has* sentience, and could think *anything*, but
> if it did, and it created a situation such as the one that
> the non-free-willers believe it did, it doesn't have much
> respect for them. They're basically nothing more than
> actors acting out a script, with no ability to improvise
> or become co-creators of the play.
Do humans who design and build robots not really think
very much of their creations? Do you find it "dismal"
that the purpose of robots is to carry out the intentions
of their creators?
Do you think about what you write, or are you far more
interested in generating putdowns of those who do not
hold the same opinions you do, whether those putdowns
make sense or not?
> > Someone pass the crown! I certainly do not know enough to
> > speak for all of existence.
>
> I don't "know" *anything*. I merely speculate, for the fun
> of it. To me, there is no fun in the idea of the universe
> as automaton.
Of course, implicit in the idea of universe as automaton
is that the sentience which drives it is identical to our
own sentience ("Atman is Brahman"). Which implies that
what we experience as our own individual free will is
really the free will of the sentience that is responsible
for our existence. It's just that we are under the illusion
that individual sentience is separate from the universal
sentience.
If we could only eliminate that illusion, we would
experience ourselves as the Source of the free will that
governs the universe, a will infinitely more vast,
infinitely more sentient, infinitely more free, and
infinitely more FUN than what the illusion dictates.
That's the idea you find "dismal" because you aren't
willing or able to expand your imagination to encompass
it (again, because it's more "fun" for you to limit your
imagination to putdowns).
> > A similar idea (unfortunately for those Hindu believers) is
> > found in the Bhagavad-Gita: 'Ishvara, situated in the heart
> > of all beings, Arjuna, causes these beings to move, (as if)
> > being placed on a machine, by virtue of maya.'
>
> To me, this vision sounds icky. To others, who would
> prefer to believe that they have no responsibility for
> their actions (because "they" don't perform them...someone
> or something else does), it probably sounds ideal.
And to others it sounds like a metaphor for what *is*,
regardless of what we would "prefer" to believe. Some
of us are willing to consider the possibility that what
we might "prefer" to believe isn't the case.
> > In religious terminology, this is called the will of
> > God.
>
> Exactly. IMO the whole idea of of "no free will" is an
> attempt by God-ists to impose the idea of "the will of
> God" onto a universe that has never had need of a God.
Unfortunately for the validity of your "opinion," the
current discussion was triggered by an essay you didn't
bother to read by Sam Harris, a member of the New Atheism
movement and author of the book "The End of Faith," who
believes there is no such thing as free will.
"Opinion is a word that has many shadings unfortunately.
There can be 'expert opinion,' which is usually based on
some sort of experiential knowledge, and then there is
opinion by people who have no idea what they are talking
about, and are just flapping off at the mouth."--Xeno
The fact that religionists call it the will of God does
not mean that everyone who believes there is no free
will is a religionist. That's like saying that because
alcoholics tend to deny they're alcoholics, everyone who
denies being an alcoholic must be an alcoholic.
<snip>
> With Hindus and wannabee Hindus like TMers, they want to
> believe in "no free will" because they have been told that
> that's what the world looks like from the point of view
> of the manufactured need they've been sold, enlightenment.
> So they "weight" the idea of "no free will," ranking it
> "higher" in likelihood because they've been told that it
> is associated with enlightenment.
Maybe for some, not for me. I had been "ranking it
'higher' in likelihood" long before I ever encountered
the idea of enlightenment. In fact, I gave the idea of
enlightenment more weight because it seemed to validate
what I had already been inclined to believe about free
will, not the reverse.
And in fact, I was drawn to TM exactly because it didn't
require using "willpower," other than to sit down twice
a day to meditate and "take it as it comes," the perfect
motto for a determinist.
There's a great deal more variation in how people come to
believe what they believe than you seem capable of
imagining. Your notions, once again, are limited to what
you can use for putdowns.
