--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > Here is a super brief (cause I am always at work while > > all these great back and forth postings occur) reply. > > We are not really discussing free will here, we are > > instead discussing whether there is even a self at all > > that can have free will. > > A good point. What I might point out is that as far > as I can tell, some of those discussing this topic > today who seem to believe that there is no self *also* > seem to be the ones with the most emotional investment > in the issue, and arguing hardest for the supremacy or > correctness of "their" beliefs.
No, you're reading that in because of your emotional investment in free will. > What's up with that? > If they have no self, who is it that's trying to prove > them (uh) selves "right" in this discussion about free > will? :-) You might ask that of Xeno, who claims it's his permanent experience. But you can't legitimately ask it of Susan because that is *not* her permanent experience at this point. She's just entertaining a theory. For that matter, Xeno isn't trying to prove himself right either. He's just describing his experience. > > ...what might happen (just a guess here, no research > > to point to) in awakening and autopilot experiences is > > that the parts of the brain that give rise to the sense > > of self must quiet down. Meanwhile, things still happen > > as they always do. The nervous system responds to input, > > comes up wiith some output, and life goes on. Only there > > is no sense of self to take credit for the responses. > > Does that mean that, physically, there was no doer? > It seems to me that there is. It seems to the law > that there is. If you respond to "things happening" in > a way that happens to be against the law, whether you > believe that you have a self to take credit for your > decision to break the law isn't going to matter a damn. > You're still going to do time for breaking the law. That's exactly right. It's what those of us who think there may be no free will have been telling you all along. <snip> > > Nevertheless, they seem to function just fine and life > > flows along as it always did and does. So, let's turn it > > around and ask this: if the sense of self no longer exists, > > if there is nothing engaging with the events that arise > > and require a resopnse, how can there be free free will > > without that self/ego? > > Who is asking the question? Who *cares* one way or the > other whether there is free will or not? Seems to me that > if there is someone who cares, there is a self, no matter > what the person claiming there isn't one says. Susan's asking it. She doesn't make the claim that this is her experience. <snip> > There may be. I am just of the opinion that the issue of > self/no self or free will/no free will can never possibly > be resolved. So why bother being concerned about it, much > less trying to prove (ahem) one's self "right" about it? Again, nobody's trying to prove themselves "right" about it. We're just discussing it because it's an interesting question. Apparently you feel it's interesting enough to participate. > > The sense of self/ego does die for some people. > > Or so they say. I, for one, see these people exhibiting > *just* as much self as anyone else. This leads me to > believe that they might just be mistaken about all this > "no self" stuff. You can't tell. It's a subjective experience.
