Ever since I saw Einstein's statement that you could do whatever you wanted but you cant wish what you want, I've been trying to figure out what free will is. I remember the C's saying that once you have pure (100%) FRV you don't switch, that is pure STO don't become STS and vice versa. This would seem to suggest that free will is a tuning in of certain signals -maybe these signals or causes are B influences if your STO or are A influences if your STS and your only real choice is whether to follow your essence or not. Well I just got Secret History and Im going to go read that... Ill post tommorow. What are your thoghts on free will?
What is Free Will
- Thread starter Kesdjan
- Start date
Okay, I think I understand what free will is a little better. I was confused between wanting and wishing. Our little I's each want something and sometimes their wants are in contradiction. Through shocks and concious suffering we fuse our little I's to be able to wish, which is an unconditional want. That is we don't necessarily like or dislike what we wish-through wishing we can endure suffering. In this way we can choose which future we want, osit?
horse
Jedi
What is Free Will
I am uncomfortably with the term 'free-will', another multi-ordinal word with too many meanings. The link to the glossary doesn't work, so I'm not getting the site's definition.
http://www.glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=333&lsel=F
From :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
In a 1928 speech to the German League for Human Rights, Einstein summarized his dismissal of free will in these terms:
I don’t believe in the freedom of the will. Schopenhauer’s saying, that a human can very well do what he wants, but can not will what he wants, accompanies me in all of life’s circumstances and reconciles me with the actions of humans, even when they are truly distressing. This knowledge of the non-freedom of the will protects me from losing my good humor and taking much too seriously myself and my fellow humans as acting and judging individuals.[50]
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/matrix_dna_illusions_alchemy_2.htm
A: You are confused because you seem to think you must be STO to be an STO candidate. You are STS, and you simply cannot be otherwise, until you either reincarnate or transform at realm border crossing.
The C's say we are all STS. In a STS controlled reality all choices, will, just reinforces STS domination. STS rule us by deception. The choices we are given to make from our view of reality are not free will. Imagination and creativity are needed to free the will to create a different set of choices, play a different game. Making choices is a throwing of the dice, knowing how to bet is knowledge of the game. Knowledge and Will exercise the brain, building new structure.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave7.htm
Q: (MM) Don't you get more free will by assimilating knowledge?
A: Yes!! Yes!!
Q: (L) So, in other words, knowledge and awareness makes you aware that you have free will, and also makes you aware of what actions actually ARE acts of free will, and therefore, when you know or suspect the difference between the lies and deception and truth, then you are in a position to be in control of your life?
A: Yes.
Discerning truth would be useful when making choices. We must learn about the lies to discern the truth. We must know ourselves to discern the truth.
Gravity is the fundamental particle. Gravity is encoded quantum information. What we perceive as light is encoded quantum information. The eye is a waveguide sending this information stream to the brain. We can measure the electrical and chemical information of the brain. The structure of the brain is processing the encoded quantum information but we measure it as mind or consciousness. The structure of our brain resonates or tunes to encoded quantum information.
What is inside of us, what is outside us? Alfred Korzybski, in his work "Science and Sanity - an introduction to non-aristotelean systems and general semantics" laid out some basics. The map is not the territory. The thing is not the label. Define the terms of the model and you can describe the model in those terms. Korzybski also talks about infinity-valued causality. He wanted people to train to a new way of thinking by changing the way we use words or at least recognize their multi-ordinal meanings. Semantic reactions sometimes make it difficult to have rational and constructive interactions between people, especially between normal people and psychopaths.
STO, the C's treat 'Free Will' as a sacred line in the sand, they don't violate anyone's Free Will. Must be an important idea to "us in the future" but we don't work hard enough on the idea because we think we already know what it is.
I am uncomfortably with the term 'free-will', another multi-ordinal word with too many meanings. The link to the glossary doesn't work, so I'm not getting the site's definition.
http://www.glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=333&lsel=F
From :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
In a 1928 speech to the German League for Human Rights, Einstein summarized his dismissal of free will in these terms:
I don’t believe in the freedom of the will. Schopenhauer’s saying, that a human can very well do what he wants, but can not will what he wants, accompanies me in all of life’s circumstances and reconciles me with the actions of humans, even when they are truly distressing. This knowledge of the non-freedom of the will protects me from losing my good humor and taking much too seriously myself and my fellow humans as acting and judging individuals.[50]
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/matrix_dna_illusions_alchemy_2.htm
A: You are confused because you seem to think you must be STO to be an STO candidate. You are STS, and you simply cannot be otherwise, until you either reincarnate or transform at realm border crossing.
The C's say we are all STS. In a STS controlled reality all choices, will, just reinforces STS domination. STS rule us by deception. The choices we are given to make from our view of reality are not free will. Imagination and creativity are needed to free the will to create a different set of choices, play a different game. Making choices is a throwing of the dice, knowing how to bet is knowledge of the game. Knowledge and Will exercise the brain, building new structure.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave7.htm
Q: (MM) Don't you get more free will by assimilating knowledge?
A: Yes!! Yes!!
Q: (L) So, in other words, knowledge and awareness makes you aware that you have free will, and also makes you aware of what actions actually ARE acts of free will, and therefore, when you know or suspect the difference between the lies and deception and truth, then you are in a position to be in control of your life?
A: Yes.
Discerning truth would be useful when making choices. We must learn about the lies to discern the truth. We must know ourselves to discern the truth.
Gravity is the fundamental particle. Gravity is encoded quantum information. What we perceive as light is encoded quantum information. The eye is a waveguide sending this information stream to the brain. We can measure the electrical and chemical information of the brain. The structure of the brain is processing the encoded quantum information but we measure it as mind or consciousness. The structure of our brain resonates or tunes to encoded quantum information.
What is inside of us, what is outside us? Alfred Korzybski, in his work "Science and Sanity - an introduction to non-aristotelean systems and general semantics" laid out some basics. The map is not the territory. The thing is not the label. Define the terms of the model and you can describe the model in those terms. Korzybski also talks about infinity-valued causality. He wanted people to train to a new way of thinking by changing the way we use words or at least recognize their multi-ordinal meanings. Semantic reactions sometimes make it difficult to have rational and constructive interactions between people, especially between normal people and psychopaths.
STO, the C's treat 'Free Will' as a sacred line in the sand, they don't violate anyone's Free Will. Must be an important idea to "us in the future" but we don't work hard enough on the idea because we think we already know what it is.
Of course he said it without willing to say it. It was a machine that said it. Quite possible.horse said:
The last sentence is yours. Did you write it out of free will, or something automatic made you to write it?horse said:
STS is a state, not an entity. Therefore it can not "rule".horse said:
The choices we are given are not free will. But making a choice may be an act of free will, or may be automatic (or because someonehorse said:
else is imposing his free will on us).
Imagination and creativity are important, but not necessary to exercise free will. Knowledge is needed. Without knowledge there is no free will.horse said:
Blindly selecting one of many possibilities is not an act of free will.
What is exercising brain is not knowledge but the act of seeking for knowledge. When knowledge is "given" - it does not exercise brain. Searching for and utilizing knowledge does. Will may have a different "seat" than just brain.horse said:
Indeed. In particular a good exercise is to find the many ways we lie to ourselves about ourselves.horse said:
Gravity is not a particle.horse said:
We don't know what gravity is. Even less about "quantum information".horse said:
What we perceive as light may well be just that: "light". It may carry some information or not. What one person will consider as being "information", another person may consider as being just noise. There is objective concept of "information". Information is always relative to something.horse said:
The eye is sending "some information" to the brain. Not "this information". For instance a laser beam can be sending some information, but the onlyhorse said:
information the eye would send may well be: "I am getting blind!"
We can't really measure the information. There are no such things as "information detectors" or "informometers". There are volt-meters though.horse said:
Brain is processing something, that's almost sure. But whether it has much to do with "quantum" is not so sure. I see no compelling reason for assuming that "quantum theory" is responsible for mind or consciousness. Nobel Prize winner, Bryan Josephson (one who invented "superconducting quantum interference device) even suggests that quantum theory needs to be changed, because it is incompatible with life.horse said:
See above, in particular:horse said:
LIMITS TO THE UNIVERSALITY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/QMlimits.html
Did Korzybski trained himself to new ways of thinking? If so, I did not see any difference :)horse said:
Indeed, some of us may think that they already know what is "quantum information" :) I don't.horse said:
Julius
Jedi
FREE WILL
I think it's pretty egdy to define free will, each one is free to 'will' anything within the available options provided by the knowledge one has.
Even if that 'thing' is unnattainable (right word?).
So what would be, 'to limit' free will?
Would it be to damage (to change) someone so that they could not 'will' anymore in some particular way?
Perhaps im getting too much into semantics in a simple subject.
I think it's pretty egdy to define free will, each one is free to 'will' anything within the available options provided by the knowledge one has.
Even if that 'thing' is unnattainable (right word?).
So what would be, 'to limit' free will?
Would it be to damage (to change) someone so that they could not 'will' anymore in some particular way?
Perhaps im getting too much into semantics in a simple subject.
One more thing that is related to the subject came to my mind. Bertrand Russel wrote:
Well, I think what he wrote is a nonsense. Why? Because the term "scientifically useless" is a fuzzy term. Quite a number of scientists created useful scientific ideas because they were following their internal conviction that they have a soul. Moreover Russel is reducing science to things that obey "causal law". But is "causal law" God for Russell? He can not even define what "causal law" is, because from physics we know that "time" is relative and that Einstein's relativity does not prevent from connecting future to past events. Philosophers often write nonsense by taking a part of our worldview at any given time, and putting it on the pedestal of an "absolute" and "forever valid".
N
noise
Guest
I imagine free will to be allowing something to go about its natural course without hindering its growth. A person could offer options or advice to give help, but really make no demands on a person who for example is a soul in struggle. It seems to be a tricky subject cause it's often (un)natural (mechanical) to want to control an outcome or think we can. It makes me think about abridging and obliging. Someone (personA) who will be willing to allow another (personB) to abridge their freewill, if they (personB) are not healthy in the head, can really hinder a person who is seeking help, knowledge, growth..
Beyond that I cannot say. I've certainly got issues in terms of control etc. Thank goodness for the forum here and to work at rewiring.
OFF TOPIC each time the glossary is mentioned I get this:
Warning: main(_sql.inc): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/site549/fst/home/glossary/public_html/_inc/_common_start.inc on line 3
Fatal error: main(): Failed opening required '_sql.inc' (include_path='.:/home/glossary/public_html/_i/smarty:/home/glossary/public_html/_i/enmasse:/home/glossary/public_html/_inc') in /home/virtual/site549/fst/home/glossary/public_html/_inc/_common_start.inc on line 3
I haven't been able to access the glossary for a month or two.
Beyond that I cannot say. I've certainly got issues in terms of control etc. Thank goodness for the forum here and to work at rewiring.
OFF TOPIC each time the glossary is mentioned I get this:
Warning: main(_sql.inc): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/site549/fst/home/glossary/public_html/_inc/_common_start.inc on line 3
Fatal error: main(): Failed opening required '_sql.inc' (include_path='.:/home/glossary/public_html/_i/smarty:/home/glossary/public_html/_i/enmasse:/home/glossary/public_html/_inc') in /home/virtual/site549/fst/home/glossary/public_html/_inc/_common_start.inc on line 3
I haven't been able to access the glossary for a month or two.
I think that free will is very similar to being able to do something, anything. It is also closely associated with knowledge, i.e. knowledge of things to do or the extent (if there is one) of what is possible to do.
So to have more free will, we must have more and more knowledge. If knowledge is a limitless concept (which in a limitless universe it probably is at least in potential) then the extent of our free will is defined by the extent of our knowledge.
There is probably also the factor of choice, because we have to chose what we will do with the knowledge/free will that we acquire (or if we will acquire it at all or the type of knowledge that we acquire), and all of this is possibly based on a theoretical nature of being.
But all of this is kind of circular because being is probably there at the beginning because it probably defines our approach to the topic of free will and knowledge. There are those who do not believe in limitless universe and knowledge etc, so their free will is also defined (or limited) by their belief which is possibly a function of their being, but then being can be increased by input of knowledge and increased free will.
So maybe knowledge is there at the beginning before Being, or maybe all three, knowledge, being and freewill are all there together in some measure at the beginning.
Or maybe it is something else altogether.
Joe
So to have more free will, we must have more and more knowledge. If knowledge is a limitless concept (which in a limitless universe it probably is at least in potential) then the extent of our free will is defined by the extent of our knowledge.
There is probably also the factor of choice, because we have to chose what we will do with the knowledge/free will that we acquire (or if we will acquire it at all or the type of knowledge that we acquire), and all of this is possibly based on a theoretical nature of being.
But all of this is kind of circular because being is probably there at the beginning because it probably defines our approach to the topic of free will and knowledge. There are those who do not believe in limitless universe and knowledge etc, so their free will is also defined (or limited) by their belief which is possibly a function of their being, but then being can be increased by input of knowledge and increased free will.
So maybe knowledge is there at the beginning before Being, or maybe all three, knowledge, being and freewill are all there together in some measure at the beginning.
Or maybe it is something else altogether.
Joe
Free will is to be able to choose freely at any given time that you have an option to choose. But to do so you must be informed of the choices from which you are to choose. And to do that, you must have the knowledge to be informed about ALL choices that are available.
If someone comes up to you and says that you can do either this or that, that is not an act of free will, because you are limited to only 2 options. This or that. That is a controlled choice. In order to exercise your free will, you must be able to choose from all choices available to you. If you are not given that option, then free will has been taken away.
So to have free will, one must have knowledge of all that one can. Of oneself and everything that is not-oneself. OSIT
(Sorry for the repetitions there.)
If someone comes up to you and says that you can do either this or that, that is not an act of free will, because you are limited to only 2 options. This or that. That is a controlled choice. In order to exercise your free will, you must be able to choose from all choices available to you. If you are not given that option, then free will has been taken away.
So to have free will, one must have knowledge of all that one can. Of oneself and everything that is not-oneself. OSIT
(Sorry for the repetitions there.)
horse
Jedi
Thank you, Ark for your critical thinking. I knew I was biting off more than I could chew. I have been studying on my own for a long time but I needed more information and interaction or networking to make more headway. I spent many nights the last couple of years reading the information on this site and wanted to join in the discussions to further my learning. I should not have included my surmisings of the quantum physics, but I was trying to get to the point that the brain does the seeing. We don't KNOW what is outside ourselves yet, and we don't KNOW what is inside ourselves either. If a human is like a machine running a program, I want to know more about the program and the programming. A song by Jethro Tull includes the line: It's best to know when you're best advised. It's a gentle reminder to me of the problem of assumptions and how little I actually know, of what I've been able to experience, tested and trued.
What I've gathered so far from my reading of the C's material is that we don't have free will in STS 3d. We can try to exercise will by gaining knowledge and discerning truth leading to STO. These endeavors can help us transition to STO 4d instead of being food for STS 4d. We don't have free will yet but we can gain free will. From Laura's writings the phrase, the devils in the details, comes to mind. Thats why I posted on this topic, what is free will. Before I read anything on this site I had concluded that there was no such thing as free will but I don't have the right words to say how I got to that conclusion. It seemed to me that exercising will has a cost or consequences so it wasn't exactly free. Even making responsible choices would require a knowledge of truth that I don't have. How would I know the truth even if I stumbled upon it, I have no reference to go by. Belief systems like religion and philosophy weren't any help, I guessed they didn't hold much truth either. I think what you are doing with the information on this website and the networking of ideas is what Korzybski had in mind when he wanted people to train to a new way of thinking by changing the way we use words or at least recognize their multi-ordinal meanings. I think I don't have free will yet, with a little help maybe I can gain free will.
What I've gathered so far from my reading of the C's material is that we don't have free will in STS 3d. We can try to exercise will by gaining knowledge and discerning truth leading to STO. These endeavors can help us transition to STO 4d instead of being food for STS 4d. We don't have free will yet but we can gain free will. From Laura's writings the phrase, the devils in the details, comes to mind. Thats why I posted on this topic, what is free will. Before I read anything on this site I had concluded that there was no such thing as free will but I don't have the right words to say how I got to that conclusion. It seemed to me that exercising will has a cost or consequences so it wasn't exactly free. Even making responsible choices would require a knowledge of truth that I don't have. How would I know the truth even if I stumbled upon it, I have no reference to go by. Belief systems like religion and philosophy weren't any help, I guessed they didn't hold much truth either. I think what you are doing with the information on this website and the networking of ideas is what Korzybski had in mind when he wanted people to train to a new way of thinking by changing the way we use words or at least recognize their multi-ordinal meanings. I think I don't have free will yet, with a little help maybe I can gain free will.
daco
Jedi
Neuroscience and Free Will from BBC Horizon:The Secret You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM&feature=related
Interesting video,it is "weird" that Marcus Du Sautoy make decision and Haynes know which decision Sautoy is going to make.
One example of being machine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM&feature=related
Interesting video,it is "weird" that Marcus Du Sautoy make decision and Haynes know which decision Sautoy is going to make.
One example of being machine.
