--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > snips > > > > I am not entirely consistent either. Non hostile disagreement > > is OK, but hostile disagreement might mean one is taking a > > wrong approach with someone, that is, you bring hostility down > > on you, but you do not know why. But if it shows up, you can > > stay or run. There is a choice, that is, if we have anything > > like what is called free will. Barry seems to like the idea > > of free will. We argued about that for a while. There are two > > components. What is the 'free', and what is the 'will'. Free > > will is a mysterious concept. From the viewpoint of science, > > it would appear we do not have it, or at best our decisions > > are the result of random variations. That does not seem to be > > the idea of free. Free will requires the concept of > > individuality. It requires a sense of ego.
Xeno, if you would, please synopsize the research you've read that leads you to believe that from the viewpoint of science we have no free will. I've heard of a few of the experiments that people who believe this cite, and I can see many flaws in their reasoning. I don't think that the data suggest a lack of free will; I think that's what the researchers have projected on to the data. But I haven't read or heard of much of this research, so if you feel you can give me a few examples of why you think science has ruled out free will, please do. Curtis, too, if he knows of any. > I agree. It just feels like free will, but that is completely > an illusion. There is no such thing. I will forgive the absolutism here, Susan, because I know it isn't your fault. Whatever It Is that makes you do things made you type that. :-) > Our brains just help us take credit for events and thoughts and > ideas and decisions that are happening on their own. Barry and > I have discussed this a few times and we respectfully disagree > with each other. I know Barry and I have each had our own > temporary experiences of this autopilot/it all happens > experience. I interpret it as a more real reality, or a let's > say a more true and accurate experience of how things actually > happen. Whereas I interpreted it as Just Another State Of Mind. That is, just another passing state of attention, "weighted" no more "highly" than any other. In other words, yes I had that experience. But I don't in any way consider it "a more real reality." It was just a different reality than the usual one, that's all. > The "ego/I decided this" is inserted at the end of the processing > in the brain, and takes credit for what went before. My view on > this is very influenced by what I have read about brain research. Same request to you that I made to Xeno, Susan. I would love to hear more about this research that convinces you there is no free will. > So, temporary personal experience and brain studies clinch the > deal for me. > > I think I can safely say based on past discussions with him > (altho Barry is free to contradict or clarify this if he cares > to) that Barry sees the autopilot experience as just another > experience in a huge range of possible experiences that does > not necessarily signify being better than the sense of I and > control and free will. LOL. I started replying to your post before reading all of it, and thus wrote the above before reading this. :-) > Part of that view may be a rejection of or growing beyond past > views of the spiritual hierarchy of experiences (witnessing is > superior to schmuckish state of consciousness). Part of my view is, in fact, based on a rejection of the hierarchical nature of consciousness. I honestly do not believe that CC is in any way "higher" than waking state, or in any way "better." It's just different, that's all. Same with CC-GC-UC. Those aren't "stages" in my opinion; they're just different experiences along the Way, none of them any "higher" or "better" than the other. My personal views of free will are also based on my under- standing of karma. That understanding leads me to believe that karma *could not work* without free will. If the only thing that determined our thoughts and actions were the reverberations of our (and the universe's) past actions, we could get stuck in samskaras forever. You've got a samskara -- when you see the opportunity to shoplift some- thing, you do. But the thing is you DON'T "have to." At any moment you can step back, recognize the samskara trying to exert its influence on you again, and Just Say No. Karma is the influence of past action impacting the reality of free will in the present. IMO, of course. > Of course, if this autopilot, awakened experience happens to > be a fulltime thing, I would imagine that one would find it > a tad tricky to argue for the existence of free will. I probably would find it equally easy to argue for free will if I was in this "autopilot" state you speak of. But that's probably because the puppet masters who run me allow me to. :-) I am a big fan of interdependent origination. The nature of the world neither comes entirely from the world nor from me. It's a never-ending interplay between the two, a dance. The world influences me, and I can influence it. And sometimes I get to lead. :-)
