I was reading about a soldier who sustained a bad brain injury while in Iraq (not Bob Woodward).  This particular soldier was a loving, gentle person before the injury.  Afterwards, and clearly as a result, he became hostile and vicious, even trying to strangle his wife.

So that raises an obvious question.  Supposedly we are born with a spiritual identity that defines who we are.  We don't arrive on earth as an empty slate.  Granted, our upbringing and environment can and does have a significant influence on us as we grow, but the fundamental core remains.  But if the brain is changed via injury or disease, how does that affect the attributes of our core being?

Also, when the soldier dies and has his life review, I wonder what it'll be like?  What's the point of showing him how his actions, after his injury, caused distress and despair to his loving wife, children, and many others?  After all, it wasn't his fault nor was it representative of who he really is (or was).

There is only a rudimentary understanding of the brain and how it works.  If, by removing certain parts of the brain we can turn a loving person into a cold blooded killer, doesn't that raise some important questions as to how much our spiritual identity is really in charge?

Hey Rondele,

if we would start from the point that we, let's say, as part of our "higher self" were sent here to "learn". The consciousness might not be directly planted in the brain, but if the spirit is fed by consciousness, he would also get the negative impression.

Brain function or personality can surely suffer from accidents (loosing the ability to remember what was before the accident, some suffer from the result that the accident brought with them, not being able to use the whole body, maybe having lost parts of it.

But whem talking about soldiers, that got hostile after coming back from war, never forget that what they experienced can also cause a total change in personality. All the senseless violence and killing happening there, blood, guts, dead comrades, simply ruins the psyche.
So it is not the damage to his brain alone, but also what he experienced.
But not to water down what brain damage can cause to the body, our personality is also part of the brain, you have surely heard about patients having removed parts of the brain damaged by cancer, e.g. losing the ability to speak, because there is a part of the brain, that is responsible for the ability to speak.

I never heard about a part of the brain, where our personality is centered, but as all of our actions are controlled by the brain, the personality must also be a part of it, maybe spread over the whole brain.
If it is like this, then the posibility, that the injury swapped his personality, is given.

When asking what is a life review good for having lived a life with such a tremendous negative change, life review can only be considered, if looking on the beliefs of this soldier.
He was a soldier, that is no contradiction to be caring and loving when it comes to family and friends, but what about the point of view, or with which kind of belief he chose to be soldier, could be that he had a strong hate against any people down there (it is crooked after all, when one goes to war, he is obviously not interested in making friends at first sight), so from the point, that he should have lived in peace and harmony so that might be the lesson learned, thou shall not kill
(it is surely a good value, but how can we live according to such values, reality teaches that people do not give a damn about this, it is easier to do not so...but that is no real excuse, but this does not really belong here, since it is not opened to talk about moral issues).
It makes sense to how spiritual teachings encourage us to live. (I tried only to find some explanations, I  new to this kind of thinking and not a  
very spiritual person .. :-[)

But it does not mean, that he lived a senseless life, I think also this kind of lessons are also a possiblity to grow (no I am not a sadist), morbid and cruel, but if they were meaningless, they would not be here. I do not claim them to be destiny, but war is mostly like a result of historical failures (made on political ground).

Mhh, but after all, stone age has passed, but man only changed from bat to machine-gun.

regards,

pulsar

Maybe the spiritual identitry is not in charge but it is just along for the ride. The distinction between the spirit and the brain, body seems to be the issue. Are we pre-wired to react a certain way which sometimes buries the influence of the spirit within a person. The world is a rough place and when the body takes over to preserve its self, anything can happen.  Also the bottom line might be we can not know or live another persons life for them. If a choice is made before I incarnate to this body then the same choice of experiences would apply for my loved ones. The choice is made by each soul and we are just, which I believe, events in each others lives. How does it feel to love, to hate, to kill, to protect, to turn on someone? The experience is not ours but it's created by us for a higher purpose.

This young man was not drafted so he did not have to go through this experience but he chose to. My daughter called this am and said she had a leak in their refrigerator line which soaked through the drywall onto the floor and warped the laminate wood flooring. Before they purchased the flooring, I mentioned to them it would warp if a minor spill occurred.  Each life event seems to be an emotional experience directed primarily to that person but can be changed if a different direction is chosen.  This might be a stretch to compare the two as to why it happens. To the soldier, maybe to teach the spirit about the horrors of war and killing and how each life is a precious resource. To my daughter, maybe the spiritual lesson is if you have the resources, you do the job right to prevent un-necessary monetary and emotional expenses when problems occurr. Their four day getaway is cancelled because of their pending house sale and it goes on with who it affects and disappointments and other things. The human brain is fragile and sometimes crap happens to upset the balance, as in the soldiers case. Regardless, the spirit is always there, watching.
Lardog

Hey Rondele,

You brought up a really good question. I agree with basically what everyone else has mentioned, just wanted to throw in that there are different lobes in our brains that control different functions in the body. Our personality and who we are comes from the frontal lobe, in the front of the brain which is directly behind the forehead. Any physical harm done to the frontal lobe can significantly change our personalities, we talked about this in my intro to psych class...and I got some pretty interesting stories of people who completely did a 180 in their personalities, and your story reminded me of that. I'm a psych major and really interested in how the brain works, so you totally grabbed my interest in that question. What I know and am learning is just with knowing how our brain works, I would love to know the connection of our spirits with the brain. Maybe I'll try and hunt down one of my prof to see what they think and I'll try to get back to you on that.

Quote:

Maybe the spiritual identitry is not in charge but it is just along for the ride.

good point.  i think the spirit's influence on the body is perhaps "subtle."  in journey of souls there's a story of a lady whose soul purposely got her body into an accident.  she had to stay in bed for life, and her lesson was to learn about the non-physical parts of life.   another person had to live in the same area for their whole life, and their lesson was to learn about being stationary and not mobile in life.  

if there's learning value in having, say, depression or schizophrenia or alzheimer's, then there would presumably also be value from being brain-damaged.  

no, the spirit is not always held accountable for the body's behavior.. for example if a person is an abused orphan adopted by a street gang, obviously he is going to behave differently than someone from a strong family background.  but the lesson is there for them to learn from it.  

While we tend to identify with solid objects and things that have names, I'm inclined to feel that what we are is essentially a matter of what we do, a process variable, and in that respect, our true nature is in our attitude. Else, when a brain cell died or a spiritual event occurred we would be fundamentally altered. In fact, attitude seems to survive life to life, subject to karma, and the rest is location, the stage on which we act it out

d

Roger,

Your post draws attention to one of the most imposing problems for those of us who seek a sensible view of the relationship between spiritual growth and postmortem justice.  Brain states affect emotional and spiritual states.  Damage to certain sections of the brain can dramatically affect both our personality and character.  For example, a farmer in my first church had always been a harmless salt-of-the earth type of Christian.  Then he experienced a stroke which changed his personality.  He became much more crude,  More seriously, he sexually molested a young boy and had to serve a one-year prison sentence for doing so.  There was clearly a catalytic link between his stroke and his new immoral behavior.  But I don't believe that the changes in brain chemistry coerced either the soldier you mention or this farmer to commit his new violent acts.  They still retained their free will.  I assess their newfound decadence this way:  

The moral worth of our free will is a function of our capacity to resist contrary inclinations.  The more powerful these negative inclinations, the more morally valuable our resistance of the resulting impulses.  The military wound and the stroke created a profound spiritual test which both men failed, but might, with difficulty, have passed.

Consider the onset of Albert Einstein's senility in his old age.  I recently read about a physicist who had aspired most of his life to make a discovery that would impress his idol, Einstein.  Finally, he achieved his breakthrough and was scheduled to be formally honored by Einstein himself.  But Einstein's affirmation proved very hollow because, by this time, his growing dementia deprived him of his former capacity to fully appreciate the genious of our physicist's discovery.  

I have shared my experience of praying for a judge named Russ, who needed to seek reconciliation with his mother who was in the final stages of Alzheimer's Disease.  Every day Russ would station himself by his mother's bedside.  Russ was desperately depressed because his mother was now a mindless vegetable.  But after prayer, she became totally lucid and rational for 45 minutes and mother and son were granted a tear-filled reconciliation as they reaffirmed their mutual love one final time.  Immediately after this reconciliation, she passed away.  

I take this as an indication that, as our spirit disengages from our body, the neurological damage caused by such mental ailments can be reversed.  I don't believe discarnate spirits are still afflicted by the dementia of their final years.  In the afterlife, their core personality is the spirituality that they achieved when their evolving minds were still able to benefit from optimal mental alertness.  But I am not totally satisfied with this rationale, and so, I acknowledge that your raise an important spiritual issse that requires more research and thoughtful reflection.

Don

The problem becomes of course obvious when a personality change occurs after a brain damage. But it starts already with the fact that we are interweaved with this physical world, having a physical body which is constantly changing and receiving influences.
 What the purpose is of this sometimes odd occurances here, and who we truely are, I think we will not figure out as long as we are a part of the physical realm. If we believe that our personalities on earth are only a little part with narrowed view of something greater, then there is the possiblility, the hope that all these oddities could finally make sense in the great picture.

 Btw, I ask everyone to whom "free will" is a key factor for clarification what it means. Does it imply "not caused" or "for no reason"? If yes, then there are problems without end. If not, what is it then?

Spooky

obviously when you consider that a soul has hundreds of incarnations, it is not bound by any particular brain or lack thereof.  there are stories of small children who are reincarnations of an old person, and certain parts of their personality do shine through, but obviously a lot of your personality is dictated by your body.  so i think personality is a mixture of the brain and the soul.  

The essence of the question on this thread can also be answered by figuring out which of these two statements is correct:

1.  Either the brain creates thoughts through electrochemistry/quantum effects on the physical plane as Western science postulates or,

2.  The brain is a receiver/transmitter much like a radio or two way radio, and spirit exists on a different interpenetrating plane.

Now, in order to interact on the physical plane we must communicate here.  We must process physical stimulation, the five senses we share, and assimilate the input into thought.  Then we must process the thoughts and create a response.  The response must then be translated into speech and action.

If the brain truly creates thought, then it is clear that damaging pieces of it could alter thinking and behaviour.  This is the Western scientists' take on things.  There is a center for speech, hearing, etc.  Damaging certain areas causes known aphasias or inabilitiies to do certain tasks.  Damage to Broca's area causes difficulties in expression - the inability to come up with a word or initiate speech.  However, everyone's disability is not predictable, and there is inconsistency to the damage seen on a CAT scan or MRI and the deficit in the patient's thinking.

However, if spirit existed in an overlapping dimension, and the brain was the main "radio receiver/transmitter" for thought/spirit, then damaging the brain could also affect thought and behaviour but in a different way.  If you damage a radio, you may hear static, or the bass or treble may be lost, or you may hear two radio stations instead of one.  Likewise, if the stroke or brain injury affected the brain as a receiver transmitter of spirit, untoward effects could be created.  You still could see the same effect in damaging Broca's area of the brain (trouble expressing words), but for a different reason.  In this case, Broca's area did not create the words/thought, but was the receiver area for expression of thought from spirit on an interpenetrating plane.

A scientist named Lashley performed numerous studies on rats.  In a rather cruel way, he took a hot heated probe and burned away different parts of the brain of rats after teaching them how to get through a maze for food.  To his surprise, even when large areas of the cerebral cortex were burned away, he found that the rats still retained some of their learning ability to do the task.  He could not isolate the memory of the maze to burning out one area of the brain:  From Wikipedia:

"his major work was done on the measurement of behavior before and after specific, carefully quantified, induced brain damage in rats. He trained rats to perform specific tasks, then lesioned varying portions of the rat cortex, either before or after the animals received the training. The amount of cortical tissue removed had specific effects on acquisition and retention of knowledge, but where in the cortex it was removed from had no effect on the rats performance in the maze. This lead Lashley to conclude that memories are not localized but widely distributed across the cortex.

By 1950, Lashley had distilled his research into two theories. The principle of "mass action" stated that the cerebral cortex acts as one—as a whole—in many types of learning. The principle of "equipotentiality" stated that if certain parts of the brain are damaged, other parts of the brain may take on the role of the damaged portion"

Lashley's experiments lend support to the idea that consciousness is not so easily identified as arising from a simple biological model of the brain.  To me, it lends support to the role of the brain as a transmitter/receiver of spirit, because many things can not be localized, and the brain does tend to function as a whole or adapt in many instances.

To get back to the changein personality with brain damage, I take a spiritual approach,and thus find myself in agreement with Don.  I do not believe that the physical damage created the anger/hate/negative personality -however, I do think it would lead to dysfunction of normal reception and transmission of spirit.  As such a person could become extremely frustrated and give in to these negative emotions after the damage.  

A slightly more sinister scenario is the possibility that brain damage might allow "lower energy" beings or spirits to have more sway and foster the negative personality of the affected soul. I certainly could not pretend to be an expert here, although some in spiritual circles speak of all of us as having positive and negative "hangers on," as it were trying to influence us all the time.

We see positive examples of people severely brain damaged or crushed in other ways (Down's syndrome children, Christopher Reeve) who overcame their physical tragedies and did not let that turn them into negative people.  So we know it can be done.

If I pursue thinking of brain damage as a spiritual interaction connecting with a damaged physical receiver/transmitter, we can see different levels of disengagementof the spirit with the physical plane.  Those in a vegetative state have such a damaged receiver/transmitter that little communication on earth is possible.  For some, like talking through a garbled walkie talkie or telephone, it may be so frustrating, that anger and vitriol are all that come out.

Thankfully, in my experience as a physician, I can say that this personality change Roger describes is fairly rare, so that for most of us, we remain to others who we have always been.

Matthew

[Spooky2:] "Btw, I ask everyone to whom "free will" is a key factor for clarification what it means. Does it imply "not caused" or "for no reason"? If yes, then there are problems without end. If not, what is it then?"
______________________________

A dice analogy is useful in clarifying the relevant distinctions.  A randomly tossed die will turn up a given number (e. g. 3) 1/6 of the time, given an infinite number of tosses.  These results would be purely random.  But suppose the die is loaded in favor of 3s and that ensuing tosses turn up 3s all the time.  Then the die's behavior is coerced.  Now suppose the die is loaded in favor of 3s but seldom produces 3s despite being repeatedly tossed in no special way.  These outcomes would be neither coerced nor random.  If the die were able to avoid 3s by conscious choice, it would by definition be doing so freely rather than randomly or coercively.  Free will then is a meaningless concept apart from contrary inclinations and can be defined as the capacity to make conscious choices which are not predetermined by prior contrary inclinations.

btw, Spooky2, you and I have something important in common: both of us chose to name ourselves after legendary members of this site--the legendary original Spooky and the original Berserk.  Do you know  what happened to these two fellows?  I'd like to contact them and find out why they no longer post here.

Seeker,

Yes, if you deem countless reincarnations a reliable doctrine, then character-altering brain damage is less of a problem.  But I reject this doctrine and the evidence of people like Michael Newton and Ian Stevenson that is invoked in support of it.  In my view, the best evidence alleged to support reincarnation is better explained in terms of either ESP or unconscious mergers with other discarnate spirits.  Let me give just two of the many reasons why I say this.

(1) Swedenborg's astral explorations produced the best verfications of any adept.  At first he was convinced that he was experiencing past life recall.  But as he explored the higher heavens, he discovered that his reincarnational interpretation was mistaken.  He was confusing unconscious mergers with undetected spirits with his own past life memories.  When discarnate spirits merge with ours, their memories are often mistaken as our own.  Swedenborg's discarnate spirits from the higher heavens then descended to the lower reincarnational hollow heavens and offered to demonstate this misunderstanding.  But the denizens of these regions were far too "stuck" in their reincarnational doctrine to tolerate such a demonstration.

(2) Ian Stevenson has produced impressive cases of past life recall in young children.  That is, his research is impressive until its several flaws are exposed.  For example, in at least two cases the alleged "prior personality" was still alive for a considerable period EVEN AFTER it supposedly reincarnated in the new baby.  What we have here is a type of possession or soul merger rather than reincarnation.  These exception support Swedenborg's refutation.  I have discussed the other weaknesses of Stevenson's research in other posts and won't repeat them here.

Don

Thanks for the replies.

I wonder if it's the same case with a Jeffrey Dahmer or Chas. Manson, assuming they had no brain injuries or birth abnormalities?

Newton goes into much detail in explaining the extensive preparations that are made by helpers before we incarnate.  Supposedly these helpers try to ensure that we are born to the right parents, with the right amount of spiritual energy, such that our life goals are maximized.  If, for instance, an entity is weak or easily frightened or intimidated, the helpers ensure that he/she is born into a supportive, loving environment and with lots of spiritual energy.

Problem is, if that's really true, these helpers are apparently falling down on the job.  Consider those countries undergoing genocide either now or in the past.  Cambodia in the past, or some of the African countries now.  Hundreds of thousands of people were brutally slaughtered, including women and infants.  

If what Newton says is really true, someone like Pol Pot or Stalin would not have been allowed to incarnate in the first place.  Supposedly the helpers have intimate knowledge of the soul that is about to incarnate, and can also stop a soul from incarnating if they perceive the incarnation will cause harm.  

After giving this whole thing lots of thought, I agree with Don re. reincarnation.  I doubt it exists.  There are too many reasons why it doesn't, including the obvious.....the explosive population growth of the earth.  From a strictly mathematical standpoint, it just isn't possible.  Unless, of course, most of us had previous lives on other planets.....:)

Btw re. Einstein, I'm currently reading the excellent biography done by Walter Isaacson.  At some point in Einstein's life, he concluded that mathematics will unravel the secrets of the universe whereas when he was younger, he didn't think that branch of study was all that fruitful.

So, I'm wondering.....does anyone think that mathematics will someday prove the existence of the afterlife?  Or if not, does anyone think that the existence of the afterlife will ever be proven at all??

Berserk2:

 Free will:
Your dice example is not really satisfying me. I reformulate: Imagine a person in a situation which requires a decision of this person. This person has many options, but has to chose only one. Now this person can act against all expectations (your die example). But this decision, no matter which one this person choses, is influencend by the situation this person is in, by the person's history, by it's spiritual state, maybe (if you like to consider this) by divine inspiration. If so, the so-called free will is dependant on all these causes / reasons and then the "free" part of will is just an empty term, as this person's will is part of the chain of cause and effect. On the other hand, a truely free will would be independent of any cause or reason, but this would mean chaos. So, I still think the term "free will" does not say much.

 original Berserk, original Spooky:
I'm not sure how to interprete your question.
If I'd take it literally, I'd had to say spooky2 is identical to spooky. I had to switch to this new name after a board crash, and I am thinking Berserk2 is identical to Berserk, as both's name is Don, and style and interests are the same; am I wrong?  
Now, the other way to interprete and answer your question is, what is identity, and are we the same as back then? And if not, if we have changed, what is the past then, and who are we now? Bertold Brecht had this little story:
 Mr. Keuner met an old mate after a long time. His mate said: "Wow, you haven't changed a bit!" and Mr. Keuner turned pale.
 So, maybe you can't contact the old Spooky as he had changed, or you can, as here he is, depending on what you meant with your question.


Rondele:

It all boils down to this:
 If there is a plan for each life which includes foreseeing everything, then, of course, everything would just happen exactly according to the plan. Maybe a soul is then only "inserted" and cannot intervene, but only experience/observate.
 If not everything could be foreseen, then simply unforeseen things will happen.

 When mathematicians have appropriate data, they can make a calculus and go to work. Then it is only a question of the capacity of those super-calculators who may be somewhere in the spirit world. The question is, IF there are usable data to process.


Spooky

[Spooky2:] Imagine a person in a situation which requires a decision of this person. This person has many options, but has to chose only one. Now this person can act against all expectations (your die example). But this decision, no matter which one this person choses, is influencend by the situation this person is in, by the person's history, by it's spiritual state, maybe (if you like to consider this) by divine inspiration. If so, the so-called free will is dependant on all these causes / reasons and then the "free" part of will is just an empty term.
____________________________________________________________________

But Spooky2, you are merely providing examples of what might shape one's "contrary inclinations--influence from current situation, personal history, and spiritual state.  If any of these factors determine your decisions, then by definition you are not free.  If I can routinely (if not always) choose contrary to my current spiritual state, the brain-washing of my historical conditioning, and the incentive of my present situation, then by definition my behavior is neither random or coerced.  Since it is nevertheless conscious, then the only alternative is that my choice contrary to what would be predicted must be free.  

I think America's "worst" mass murderer is a case in point.  Tim McVeigh was by all accounts a respectful and decent young man, an altar boy in his church, a good worker for the local Burger King, and loving and courteous towards the gals he dated.  He grew up near my former residence.  So I was able to glean many details about what he was really like from his former friends and even an ex-girlfriend.  Yet clearly, at some unknown point, he freely made some very bad decisions that transformed his character in an evil direction.  

Don2  

I think the post by "Doc M" is to the point, although I'm going to argue with you, Matthew.

The issue is not necessarily dichotomous - William James wrestled with the same issue and came up with the notion of an epiphenomenon, a correlated action not causally linked by necessity or sufficiency to another correlated event or action.

Using Amy Noether's theorem to imply that if something is conserved, it implies a law of some sort, then epiphenomenal events imply a common causal factor removed from consideration. I'll give one of many examples...

Imagine reality as the product of a Yin and a Yang, interacting in all possible ways at all possible rates, so as to generate our world as it is. (That creaking sound is generations of offended Taoists rotating in their crypts.) In such a world, three events with no immediate association might occur, such that until traced back to the initial Yin and Yang, no association could be found. Thus, the "third path".

To relate this to Spooky's question about "free will", information evolves by forming sets of prior data, then sets opf those sets etc, a process called an "iterated complexion" (or "iterated power set" if you prefer). Chooice is fully regulated by feedback under conditioning, even to the extent that it involves injury etc. So "free of what?" is a good question. I suggest that we learn, apply our knowledge, and make decisions just that way, in full accord with the principles of chemistry, physics and conditioning.

Now, step back a moment and look at who is really asking the question. Your ultimate nature shares in the present moment with all of us, but can be traced back to a singular event at which all were (and still are) one. To act in the "Person" of that One, sometimes called dedicating your works to God (but there's a lot of social freight on that idea!), is to become one with the causal principle that is, today, here and now, expanding the universe. To view this from the viewpoint of an isolated individual is to accept conditioning. On that basis, I'd suggest that God has free will, and to the degree that we accept that we are God, so do we, but not otherwise. (Now see if they're piling firewood around the stake ... :P) It's like a roller coaster ride, except that you don't want to fall off.

dave

Don, when you "choose contrary to [your] current spiritual state", would you then say this decision is without cause and without reason? Only then it would be a decision of free will, otherwise it's determined and not free. An act is not free only because it's unexpected. I guess you won't say it is uncaused and unreasoned, because you said you're not unconconcious doing when deciding that way, and indeed, free will would be counterintuitive to consciousness, mind, reason, as it would be unconnected to anything before (and thereafter, if every act would be free).
 (My formulation of the problem is similar as Kant did it in his "Critique of Pure Reason". His "solution" isn't really a solution I find though.)
 
Dave shows that the word "free" isn't useless, it only must be clear "free of what". "Free to" is the other side of it, but too problematic- we only know for sure that someone was free to do something when it really happened. We can't say anything for certain about if someone was free to do something when it has not happened so far. (This is from a philosophical viewpoint- in justice there is all the time spoken of virtual possibilities to have been free to do or omit sth.)  
 Your iteration and feedback view includes cause and effect Dave, right? Although, if you consider quantum effects there are some imponderabilities in the small range, mostly statistically equalized, but still under some conditions maybe (positive feedback/amplification) create unforeseeable ("chaotic") effects. (Some say the brain is nothing else than a quantum-process amplifier, nice way to introduce spiritual influences into the physical).

Spooky

[Spooky2:] "Don2, when you "choose contrary to [your] current spiritual state", would you then say this decision is without cause and without reason? Only then it would be a decision of free will, otherwise it's determined and not free. An act is not free only because it's unexpected."
________________

To choose contrary to one's current spiritual state is to decide without "cause."  Otherwise, the choice is determined. Put differently, free volition presumes the notion of self-causation as oppsed to causation by an external agent or set of circumstances.  But that is not to say that free choice is "without reason."  If it were without reason, it would ultimately be a "random" choice that is biased by a set of conscious or unconscious "inclinations."  No, the best moral "reason" or motivation for free volition is "love"--love for the sake of love or for the sake of pleasing God, the source and essence of love, not love as a means to any other end.

Don2

Right, Spooky. "Free to" and "Free from" are at the heart of this.

Like most psychologists, I learned good behavioral technique, as well as a lot of relatively naive behavioral theory, all of which came on top of Freudian and post-Freudian neurological theory. I have yet to find a reason to fault these areas - except that they're a bit closed minded about subjectivity, they appear valid.

If we view ourselves as individuated actors on the biological stage, our roles are pretty well defined by physics and chemistry. We react in ways that are novel to us, but in each case, we follow our own predestined psycho-physical determinism.

In deep meditation we often feel as if we have left the level of stimulus-response and in some manner have reached the core at which reality emerges. We hear this described as "knowing God", or attainment of "samadhi" or any of dozens of other metaphysical expressions that indicate that we have placed our awareness at the "point of cause". At that time, I suggest that we have gone beyond our training and the limitations imposed on us as individuals, and instead we represent the free will that was manifested at the instant of creation.

This is interesting to me. In a sense what we are doing here is simply discussing our own programming in ways that have been programmed into us. Struggle as we will against it, we are the products of a material reality much like little wind-up toys from one of those places that is having an international recall for lead paint. ;-)

The freedom that I personally discover in this is two-fold. First, we didn't have to take on an incarnation in this or that form initially, but as part of the initial enthusiastic projection of "Self" we left the central identity with Godhead, much like a spark leaves a campfire, and here we are. That was an act of personal freedom based on awareness prior to existence. That we are presently in a deterministic situation does not negate the initiation of the activity, any more than the "follow through" of a golf swing negates the initial effort to hit the ball.

Second, starting in voidness, there is no limitation to the creative impulse, save that things must be logical. At this point we discover that God disperses a nearly infinite array of parallel universes, most of which are compatible, and which are occupied by one of us. This is the world of statistical distributions, quantum effects and suchlike. All the statistically related parallel realities began as an unrestricted creative impulse at "Event One". You and I are riding along in one or another of these realities. Now that we can see where we are, we can (predictably) alter our path to be in a better place because it feels better, and the mechanisms of karma help us in this respect, just as feedback helps any other automaton. In a sense, we live in the "follow through" of the swing that created the universe.

The fact that we get together in groups to discuss this stuff is liberating, in the sense that it allows us to assist one another to return to the Source. Having been using this faculty for some years, with awareness that I am only free to the degree that I am acting from the point of initial creation, I am inclined to ask, as did Albert Einstein, whether God could have created the world in any other way, or was God constrained. Personally, I'm still inclined to side with God in this, that creation was free, like a cosmic painter sloshing colors on an infinite canvas, and all the rest is fallout and follow through, a time of shading, adjusting, and revising to obtain the most pleasing effect. :-)

And then, the Hindus tell us, God withdraws this world and casts forth another. However obscure to us this might be, it seems to be fun for God. Hence the Hindu terms it "lila", the play of God. And the secret to all of this is that it is us who are doing it.

dave

DonTheSecond,
seems we won't come together on this one.
Neither can I accept that it is possible at all that one makes a decision against  this one's own spiritual state (that sounds simply unlogic to me),
nor can I accept an uncaused act, or "self-causation" while still remaining to have something like a biography. Uncaused actions would imply we had mere unconnected points of time. Your own use of "reason" implies an action to be embedded in something- an uncaused act isn't.

Dave, if I might allow myself the freedom, in summary you are saying:
that all which is in accord to logic (either A or NOT A, not both, Tertium non datur) was created in the beginning. The word "all" already implies freedom (both kinds, if we put the logics restriction aside)- there is no more freedom thinkable than "all".
In the next stage, we have a set of, as you maybe would say "potentialities". (A difficult question would be, if finite or infinite)
Now the dynamics would come into play when they got superimposed and interact, that would create then the pair: Actualized/real vs. switched off/only potential. I think I remember you talked earlier that to live as an individual is to "jump from one potentiality to another" or so. That way, things (us included) could be seen as "actualization track" across the "switched-off-only-potential".  ? Or so.


Spooky

Hi Spooky- I still think your observation about "free to" and "free from" carries the essential question. With that I am fully in accord. But you ask an interesting question which has gotten me thinking about the details half the night. While I wouldn't want to admit to fuzzy thinking, you've pointed to a couple loose ends, which I will nail down here ... maybe.

I view this as having to do with cosmology and ontology as well as biology and physics, and all of that long before we reach psychology. My take on ontology is that in the initial instant of creation there was a pattern of, at the very least, some way in which logical structures might occur. Then, contingent on having additive space, everything must have emerged in terms of the initial logical pattern. That gives us a series of events in which the initial terms combine with one another to form new terms, those combine to form yet another layer of new terms etc, essentially an iterated complexion (or iterated power set if you prefer). No matter what the initial pattern of logical stuff might have been, this incorporates its evolution, because it incorporates all functionals over additive space.

In topological terms, we perceive these patterns and identify with one after another so as to move through space and time, more or less generating a geometry in which to live. At the same time, the geometry pre-exists by virtue of logical connectives between states. So we wander through potential space like a vagrant wandering through the streets and sidewalks of a city, free to choose any of the pre-existing paths and byways.

To get obdurate matter from this means that we must make a committment to some specific state or event, and invest our own reality into it, so that we become commensurate with it in some maner. That gives us the illusion of "extension". Since we are still limited by logic, once we take a posture, the rest unfolds acording to what we call "the laws of nature".

What actually unfolds is simultaneously all the endless sequences of combinations, and all the "parallel universes" which are permutations of the ways to form those combinations. (For example, you can count your fingers from thumb to pinky, or vice versa, or in any of 118 other ways, giving 120 parallel universes between starting the count and ending it.) These are static definitions, in the sense that they are well defined logically, and extend arbitrarily toward infinity.

We sense this logical evolution as dynamic in the sense that having attached to some criterion, we interact with context to extend things, so that one level of projected implictions preceeds the next, until we arrive at the level in which the accretion process is very slow, and we perceive the projection of past reality into future reality as occurring in "time". If we assume that the universe started with a dyadic initial structure, then our present manifest cosmos is at about complexion iteration 4.3.

When I, prior to everyday experience, made the primal choice to invest myself in some initial state, I did so with the insight of a chess player who is trying to look several moves ahead. To that degree, I attempted to limit myself, but ultimately, my choice was initially arbitrary. Having no experience, I am free, but also ignorant. Later on, I am forced to again make that choice, but in different terms, as my initial attachments projected outward are later presented inward as karmic recoil, and also as part of my surrounding experiential context as I blunder my way through the world acquiring knowledge.

Here we have a seeming paradox in which I am free to make a choice, which requires that I make another choice, which requires that I make another choice, and so on. My initial act extends into every other action I make, and it defines the kind of deterministic loading I place upon later choices. In this sense, my initial act is carried perpetually forward requiring me to ratify it in a succession of states. By that I am perpetually continuing to make the same initial, unconditioned choice, although now in context. In this I am "self-determined", or free. At the same time, I am locally determined by physics, limited by my biology, and shaped by the karma that I have called up from context. In that I am "other-determined" and not free.

So we have a logic more like that of Nargarjuna, in which at one instant I am subject to an exclusive OR dialectic, being determined or not, and at the next instant I can point to the manner in which I am both free from determination, yet also subject to logical limits which define me, an inclusive OR. Depending upon viewpoint, I am thus globally free, as I am acting from the "Point of Cause", yet fully determined, as my initial choice from the "Point of Causality"  carries a string of subsequent implications which I cannot evade.

We have a tendency to confuse creativity with freedom. When I take two conceptual objects and merge them to give rise to a third object, such that the third object is, by virtue of synergy, different from either of the two beginners, then I have been creative. To be creative in this manner does not equate to having will "free from" external causality.  I might just be following a recipe for arroz con pollo.

It's on this basis that I suggest that the moments in which I free myself occur when I "return to Center" and operate at the "Point of Causality", nirvastarka samadhi. At the time I act as an element of the "Uncaused Cause" in the general Thomistic sense. This is unconditioned action. However, the alien nature of samadhi also makes it a state specific situation to which I cannot relate in my everyday life, nor can I define. In that lack of definition, however, is freedom, and in the repetition of the states called up and subsequently manifested, I again make an unconditioned choice.

Hmmm - Y'know, it kinda sounds as if we are forced to be free. ;-)

dave

I find myself a something of a disadvantage guys in that I don't have the theoretical framework to express a view in quite your terms. Nevertheless I'd appreciate your thoughts on some questions which seem prompted by what you've mapped out.

At my very basic level of understanding it seems that this reality rolls out according to a network of cause and consequence. That as I think you are saying whatever free will we have is very heavily constrained by this. Maybe also by the fact that wherever it all ends up it's eventually got to find it's way back to unity or God or the absolute - that as I've suggested before maybe freedom is like the way quantum uncertainty regarding the state of constituent particles does not alter the fact that the object is still a block of wood.

My inclination is to think that when we act purely in accordance with ego driven animalistic instinct that as you say we think we have free will but our future actually rolls out wholly in accordance with a predictable chain of cause and consequence - fate if you like.

Whatever freedom we have perhaps arises out of our learning from karma that it's much wiser and less painful to live by love. Although this is not intellectual learning or the application of some sort of gameplan, this is progressively raising consciousness to become something else (something God like) that simply is that way.

So the span of freedom we have perhaps lies in the range of alternative actions made possible in the space/continuum between living from pure love and living wholly selfishly.

God presumably could but chooses not to force anything on us other than the above limits. He makes Grace available to those that seek it, but they must make the first move.

Not sure if this is either intelligible or something you might even broadly agree with. The questions however relates to the  mechanism by which we might return to God.

When I look at the world and at most of the activities we consider 'progress' I seem to see instead a situation where we by continually introducing ever more mental intensity and complexity into our lives (especially through competition and by so called scientific method which is inevitably reductionist rather than integrative, and has become the default mode of thinking in the western world) dig ourselves ever deeper into this reality (samsara) and drive ourselves further from unity or God.

There has to be some limit, but the ever increasing rate of thought and mental intensity which results from this (we can nowadays even bail out of this world to inhabit virtual realities via the internet and so on if we wish) creates mind conditions which make access to higher realities ever more difficult and hence slows insight and true spiritual growth. (intellectual spirituality counts only inasmuch as it helps spiritual progress, and it's to me often as much a barrier to as a facilitator of progress)

Meaning that most of humanity is headed ever deeper into samsara or whatever you choose to call it - unless there is a parallel increase  in spiritual growth and/or change in lifestyle which more than counterbalances this.

To pose some questions:

- Could it be that withdrawal from modern life somehow a pre-requisite to spiritual progress?

- How does the direction of our society need to change if we're not in fact to make escape from samsara almost impossible for future generations?

- If our progress is in fact compatible with spirituality, what will the evolved 21st century human that squares the circle of achieving spiritual progress while dealing with ever more complexity be like?

Hi Vajra-

I'm not being very Buddhist in my expressions, but you might notice what happens when you take the Prajanaparamita Sutra literally.

Given that everything is nothing and only because it is nothing can it be everything, we ask where are we? We are no-where. Our nature is no-thing, and we are no-body. Allusions of being somewhere, as an extended thing, with a human embodiment are due solely to errors arising from attachment.  Aside from them, our nature is being in pure potentiality.

Given that, then the karmic process you described applies. And for physics, love translates into a state of equilibrium, so we have love here, and thermodynamics there. Thus, once we attach, we shift potentiality to materialization, but interactions get karmic feedback, so everything settles nicely. Or, in terms of physics, hot things cool off and come into equilibrium with their context. Our nature is dynamic, not massive, so we actually reach a dynamic balance, like a comfortable oscillation.

When our state of balance ultimate is guided into rejection of the attachment by which we got hooked, we fall back into "Mind",  and are again at Cause.

While here, we are determined by birth issues, parenting, past life phenomena, social learning, education, conditioning, habits, physiology etc. These define our life, and due to their nature, they define us. We thus are not free from our circumstances.

However, the act by which we initiated our attachment, and thus incarnation, was free and volitional, and included, by direct implication, the series of choices which follow on until the end of the series of incarnations and return to Godhead. So, we make the free choice at the first, and then we cope until we are back at "GO" again, in the state of emptiness, from which everything emerges.

When people describe this in terms of past life regression they express a happy entry into the "Spirit World", some kind of interactions there, and finally, as one person put it, "Oh, it's that time again." And thus, what is done in spirit, as we make attachments in emptiness and then follow them without letting go,  is what ultimately hooks us back to another round. This is a microscopic version of the entire cycle from Creation to Termination.

In my opinion, withdrawal from life is necessary only to the degree that you are harming yourself. -  But we all knew that.   Withdrawal from attachment is different. That's the way out, and it's done by going through the discipline of spiritual development.

My personal guess for the next few decades is a repetition of the 45 year cycle in which the 20's led to the 60's and 70's, and now the upwelling of new ideas that will come into sharp focus in roughly 2010 or 2015.  Hopefully this will be an upsurge of rational thinking, but it might go toward another episode of social insanity.

Nicely described Dave, and right on. My question about withdrawal was framed not from the point of view that it might of itself be necessary for spiritual progress, but rather that it seems much harder to drop conditioned egotistical grasping when in the sort of states of high mental intensity that modern life lived naively tends to induce.

This is far from a precise or fully thought through framework but I tend to think in terms of three dimensions insofar as spiritual progress is concerned. (not an original view, although it's not necessarily expressed in this way) The dimensions are left brain, right brain and degree of awakening.

Left brain (LB)  = rational/intellectual/conceptual/discursive thinking mind (IQ intelligence)

Right brain (RB) = romantic/instinctive/emotional/intuitive/insightful/integrative/knowing mind (emotional intelligence)

Degree of awakening (A)  = at one extreme total egotism, at the other ability to access/place the awareness in higher non ordinary states of consciousness. (perhaps spiritual intelligence?)

A is emptiness and must precede (or enables) the others which I guess are in terms of the Heart Sutra  form. At higher levels it's God, untity, the absolute, the afterlife realms, the true nature of mind or pure potentiality. The source of Grace, of wisdom and love/compassion, that which knows 'good from evil' and recognises 'quality', all that's creative, and seems to include the pure awareness that perceives before we judge and allow our preconceptions to exclude from consciousness what doesn't fit our egotistical wishes if you like.

The first two dimensions are not necessarily maximised, but the third is and all are fully integrated and mutually influencing in the fully realised person. Interestingly enough realisation is not regarded by Buddhism as requiring a high level of intellectual capability. (such a person may not know that much, but they won't do harm to others because they'll be guided by an intuitive wisdom and compassion and lack of selfish ego drives to stay within their limits, and be responsive to others' needs)

The typical Western mind presents some issues when viewed through this lens. We tend to combine ever more intense and complex but often valueless (value as in the things we regard for no easily expressed reason as inherently important) left brain type thinking with a relatively egotistical and selfish state of consciousness, and to  in practice (recent books on the importance of emotional intelligence notwithstanding) discourage the more intuitive right brain style.

The result is the ever faster pace of a life where people more and more frantically (both physically and intellectually) pursue mostly selfish gain.

This is probably better than the animalistic behaviours that historically were probably the result of the same selfish state of consciousness with (in absence of much education) right brain emotional mind - most can figure out by intellectual means that there are selfish acts that are really not in their future interest and overcome instinctive urges to co-operate in cliques for mutual benefit (the term sometimes used for this is rational self interest), but it lacks the empathy/loving/compassionate dimension of  higher consciousness that leads to actions being driven not by selfishness but by care for others.

It also tends (out of selfishness, but worsened by our habit of using reductionist thinking and of poo pooing intuitive insight) towards the wider, more highly integrative considerations in the common good that won't deliver rapid pay off for individuals being ignored. With the result that competition is simply elevated from between individuals to being between tribes, companies, nations, races, religions or whatever is defined as 'us' and not 'them'. And the co-operation only lasts as long as it's perceived to be in the selfish interest of the individuals concerned.

Most of the big problems the human race faces (energy, ecology, environment, population threat of destruction etc) can be traced to the shortcomings of (or issues not addressed by) this pattern of consciousness - most just can't stretch to seeing the need to act outside of their cliques.

Meaning it's really important that we rapidly come to raise our consciousness (so that we act out of love, and gain the intuition needed to judge what's wise and not without always having to learn the hard way again and again). We also need to start to become much more aware of the limits of reductionist intellectual thought, to become much more responsive to intuitive insight, and to start to think in more integrative and joined up terms.

Not sure if that lot made any sense but to the questions, and your point on cycles Dave. It seems it's possible to combine very high levels of intellectual development and activity with the highest states of consciousness (some of the Tibetan Rinpoches are incredible in this regard), but it's probably much  tougher to raise consciousness while in a mentally and physically intense life situation.

Which doesn't bode all that well for our futures - at least as matters stand. I can't help thinking that while we really could use slowing life down a bit right now that it'd get a lot worse if we screw up and launch ourselves back into survival mode in a new stone age.

On the other hand some external (and timely - before it all goes 'pop') help could make a very big difference (in the form of an externally assisted shift in consciousness, or in the form of one of your cycles coming to fruition)  - it wouldn't take a lot to make a big difference.

What do you guys think is going down, how might it play in terms of the above (presuming it makes sense to you) and how might it roll out?

:) It'd be interesting to hear more about your cycles Dave. Are you thinking of `Terence McKenna?

Dave:
I see what you mean. It is though the question if to call this initiate decision to connect to possibilities "free" is appropriate. On the one hand, of course there are no restrictions and influences coming from a biography at the beginning. But it is as well like starting from scratch, like a baby that falls on the floor, and we won't say it made the decision to do this. And, too, there finally must be something there, something which makes the decision, the mysterious individual, now in it's purest form, without experiences, but still a being able to decide. So there is a cause, laying in this indivdual; but yes, in this early stadium, it might not be called the cause, determinating it's decision (maybe better to say it IS it's decision).
 Another thing is, if we actually can go into a state at one with the initial cause of our individuation, the starting point of our complexion / iteration in time, it is somehow suggesting to me that this way we go here in the time-realm is to be seen embedded in an "already finished" realm, including all time there was and will be. It's a sort of intuition I have- if I'd think long enough I'd surely find a logical proof for it  ;) .

Vajra, what I see in modern life, which is different from the older days, is that even the average person in the "up to date"- parts of the world has to deal with much more intellectual issues than ever before, alone because of all the technical stuff we are flooded with. This is consuming much time and energy. Might be that people had to work harder in former times, but despite that, they may have had more time for chat and letting the mind flow freely than many people today have. So, "simple living" is almost a must-motto for every timeout we allow us so that we get to think of something different than instruction manuals for cellphones, mp3 players and such...

Spooky

Vajra - my last interaction with McKenna was at an entheogenic herb  seminar in Palenque where he told his usual stories, and announced, to my amusement, "DXM is a lousy high."  (I agree.)

Interesting ideam Spooky - I use these same ideas in therapy, and I think that things are a bit less stringent than I have described them, but I haven't yet been able to see it. In therapy, I send people "back to Center" in some way, whether in a past life regression or straight hypnosis. Then I suggest that they select a new lifestyle, and holding onto that thought, come back to the world. It leads to a different path that bypasses prior issues.

My impression is that to the extend that in the present moment we act from a "central posture" we recover some degree of freedom - but the whole sequence remains set up when we initially grab onto something and invest in it emotionally in spirit - our potential state.

There's a secondary inference in that - perhaps in spirit we have all options available to us, so that we can experience all alternative realities at once, or individually, provided only that we don't grasp one and attach to it. But I'm speculating.

The only reason I happen to like this model is that it allows physical and psychological science as well as subjectivity and choice. There may be a simpler way to get to the core truths.

In a potential reality, since there is nothing that is ultimately impossible, and because potentialities add with replacement, the pattern of relationships between every possibility and every other possibility must occur, at least by inference, so everything crystallizes, in potential space, with Event One.  Our world has material limits, and matter adds without replacement, limiting our options in the everyday world.

d

dave_a_mbs wrote on Sep 14^th, 2007 at 11:58pm:

There may be a simpler way to get to the core truths.

  There is!  By living the most core of the core truth, the one thing that we as humans have erected walls upon walls against.

  Summed up in "others, Lord, others" and "Your Will be done, Not my (the limited self's) will be done".   The more consistently and purely one lives that in relation to all of creation, the more everything is opened up to them perceptually.  

 All the rest is just emotional and mental masturbation with no orgasm at the end.

 I choose, and am in the process of learning to choose orgasm (as we all are to varying degrees of conscious consciousness), simply because it feels better.  

HI AhSo-
I can't fault the immediate logic of preferring that which is pleasant in opposition to that which feels unpleasant. That's why my job is "Therapist", as opposed to "the Rapist".

My personal problem is that I don't seem to always dwell at the "Point of Causality", so my choices are always contingent. Instead, I get into the roller coaster, ride it out of the womb, over the humps and twists, and finally back to the starting point where I evidently have a habit of looking for some other ride. Hence life is "lila", the "play of God". (That's the Dude selling tickets to these carnival rides.) The idea of "Not my small will by Thy Great Plan etc..." seems to be more of a matter of which ride I choose than whether or not I choose to ride.

Conversely, when I finally get my spiritual self stabilized to the point at which I do have a moment at Center, all of this fades away. And then, moments later, I discover that  have bought another ticket and am rushing to the starting gate for another trip down a slippery slope. I seem to alternate between "Whee" and "Why?".

And then again I'm off, learning this and that as I go, and responding to what I have learned like any well programmed machine. It feels like freedom because it's creative. But thus far I can't get my logic to look past the starting gate. After setting things in motion, it appears that all my subsequent choices are nothing but my initial choice fed back upon me, and then reiterated by reactions, etc.

My suspicion, which I can in no way "prove", is that there is always the immediacy of God, through which we do, in fact, make unconditioned creative choices, because we are elements of the wavefront of "Life Force", or as Bergson put it, "Elan Vital" as it expands into the unknown. Thus, we are always at the "Point of Causality", but unaware of our participation. Aside from a few issues, like infinite regression, this makes some kind of sense. I can draw the picture, but as yet I can't interpret it.

Maybe I'll figure it out next week after a little more meditation. - - - This morning it's time for another cup of coffee while enjoying the orgastic explosion of sunlight, squirrel tails, and birdsong through the front windows.  Ah So desu, ne?   ;-)

Love-
dave