Your poor dead cat has just died..... that's okay.....
Due to the miracles of modern science, you decide to clone your loving pet for thousands of dollars......!
You take the time and effort to recreate the exact same circumstances as your previous pet... and......

The cloned pet does not react the same way!
Free will.......It is a mystery.

Could free will simply be a random throw of the dice....?

OR.....

Could free will be a clue as to the true difference between all living things.... a clue to the existence of the spirit?

Focus,

Cloning will bring in that animal the same DNA, the same features etc, but the soul isnt the same.

I think.

Exactly true. There is no mystery to free will once you have understanding of real-time simulations or, in other words, the nature of time.

What exactly does "free will" mean at all?
It could well be an illusion.
For example, you have a thought and act on it, and you think it is "your" thought and "your" impulse and "your" decision to act. But is this not an over-simplification of our over-simplified mindset in this so-called "awake-world"?
Think about who you are. What defines your "I"?
Is it the body? Thoughts? Impressions? An impression of a centeredness inside a body? A network of relationships with body and environment and concepts and thoughts and and and?
Where does the "I" end? Does it really end at the skin of the body? And if not, where is its limit? Or is there no limit to the "I"?
Where do thoughts come from? From within the body or from without? Is the body a thought-form? Or are thoughts physical phenomena?
Thinking it to the end, it leads to the notion that "free will" is a naive childish illusion without any real meaning.
Just a byproduct of the illusion of separation.

I sympathize with Oliver's respond. I won't speculate about how the world works in truth and depth, but one's for sure, the phrase "personal free will" is self-contradictory. In order to have a person, a consistency enduring time is needed, established by cause and effect, memories and consequences coming from those memories. "Free will" would downright destroy the concept of a person and cause 'n effect resulting in no-laws, chaos, randomness.

Spooky

I believe that we all have free will, it is just that some of us get so caught up in our psychological conditioning and emotional attachments that we have a hard time using it in a wise and "loving" way.

I've found that if I forget about thinking about free will in a philosophical way and just simply allow myself to be aware of what takes place with my immediate experience, I do in fact have free will.  In a way, tuning into how we have free will is the same as tuning into our inner self. Is our inner self bound?

Free will isn't about being able to do whatever we want regardless of the consequences and how we effect others. It is about being free to make the most  love-based decision possible.

Whenever we make a decision there is going to be some parameters that we need to consider. The existence of parameters doesn't mean that we don't have free will.  The more we can consider the parameters with an expansive viewpoint, the more we'll be able to respond to them in a way that is representative of freedom.

Our inner self is too amazing and boundless to be caught in a hopeless chain of causation.

Regarding the time conundrum, just because all decisions we ever make happen in the same now, this doesn't mean free will wasn't available each time we made a decision.

If people aren't careful they can psychologically condition themselves in a way where they lose touch with the part of themselves that is able to decide freely.

On another spread I spoke of a guru who wasn't concerned about being a porn and sex addict because he asserted to himself that he isn't his mind. Because he has chosen to believe in such a way he has really limited his spiritual growth.

Another mistake he has made is believing that we don't have free will. Therefore, he doesn't feel as if he is free to do anything about his addictions.

I suppose that some day he'll become tired of his approach and seek one that works, even if he has to put in some effort and work on himself.

Laziness and not taking responsibility for one's nature is not the way to spirtual wisdom and freedom. We need to cultivate ourselves in a positive way if we want to be able to manifest in a positive way.

spooky2 wrote on Nov 8^th, 2011 at 8:18pm:

I sympathize with Oliver's respond. I won't speculate about how the world works in truth and depth, but one's for sure, the phrase "personal free will" is self-contradictory. In order to have a person, a consistency enduring time is needed, established by cause and effect, memories and consequences coming from those memories. "Free will" would downright destroy the concept of a person and cause 'n effect resulting in no-laws, chaos, randomness. Spooky

Hi Spooky,

but could'nt we have effectively 'free will' in that choices/decisions always have antecents but since we can never, in practice, have a state of knowledge in which we can know all those antecedents, free will is maintained in practice if not in theory.

D

Further to my response above; imagine that a team of scientists armed with the world's best super computers have studied my previous circumstances and decisions and use that information to predict all my future choices. If there was a direct cause and effect relationship, all my future choices will be predictable and the scientists will be 100% accurate. On the other hand if there is no cause and effect relationship at all then the scientists will score no higher than chance. Intuition tells us the scientists will score significantly higher than chance and get more accurate with better models.But they will also never get to be 100% accurate ... therefore its not a simple choice between cause and effect and randomness but some kind of fusion between the two extremes.

Heisenberg69,

about your first respond in that no one can anticipate the effects of effects of effects etc. , that's true, but it is not the point, as the "will" is some intention, like "I'm going to do this". What the effects might be of this action is another question. More interesting is to ask how we come to think "I'm going to do this". If this is a result from earlier decisions, having caused unpredictable effects, well then the resulting "will" is as well an element of the chain of unpredictable events. You certainly can call this will "free", in the meaning "unpredictable" or "chaotic", but look what happens then to the "person". Now, we then couldn't talk about a person anymore. "Person" and "free will" just don't go together.

Regarding your second response, yes, there are two models to interprete cause and effect. One is in the way of the "Laplace Demon", in that if we knew all parameters about a timepoint, we would be able to predict the future. The other is, we are principally not able to get all parameters, either because there are no such parameters (quantum mechanics) and/or because the image of a "timepoint" doesn't match the reality, in the way that it is impossible to reconstruct the (maybe) fluid, running reality through an infinite row of timepoints.
   But I have to emphasize that, regarding "personal free will", it doesn't matter if we believe in a predictable or non-predictable universe; my point is that it is just self-contradictive (as either there is a consistent cause-and-effect structure or freedom, but you can't have both) and therefore we simply should forget this phrase.

Spooky

Well, as a lay man, id say, there is no machine or such stuff that can predict human behaviour, i guess this "randomness" has been the key to our survival as a race if nothing else. Free will is in animals too, but they have only two options or so they can comprehend. A deer either stays or runs off on seeing a tiger. The human mind can and thinks of other options availible.

I dunno if i made sense here, but on the whole i think u cannot predict human behaviour to a given situation. :-?

In my deepest meditation, I am aware of nothing but that I am aware; a point of perception, devoid of form.  Take away from me what you will, I am (and we all are) a focus or conscious perception. 

Spooky is correct about personal free will in a semantic sense.  In the conscious earthly mind, there is an ego, personality, a history.  If you have burned your hand in a flame, you will likely not put it in the flame again.

But getting to our essence, that is where my thought takes me.  When I've been there, I am at that place of Cogito ergo sum (Descartes).  I am because I think/perceive.  Often in that state of deep meditation, I am not aware of my history.  The conscious mind is asleep and the pure perception is awake.  This is our deepest "self."  We react the way our spiritual/emotional perceptive self reacts.  There is no "if x, then y" thought involved. 

This is the most basic form of spirituality I know of.  On earth, in the physical, we develop an interactive rational ego to live with others.  The rational side can respond to past events, and act logically.  Many many people will act rationally even if it is against their spiritual nature or instincts.  This usually sets up a conflict, and leads to unhappiness. 

When the layer of earthly ego falls away, after we pass from the earth plane, we simply are who we are.  We are who we have nurtured and become.  We are the fruit of what our inner loves and nature have nourished.  We planted thought seeds into our subconscious and they sprouted and flowered.

It is this inner nature that I believe acts unto its own love.  This is the same thing simply as saying you get corn from corn seeds and cucumber from cucumber seeds.  When we act from our true love and nature, it is spontaneous.  The cause and effect theory of no free will no longer applies (though it did in ego based earthly life). 

Now admittedly, it may be that in our pure perceptive spiritual state, we can rationally choose to cultivate new loves and continue to evolve in the path of love (or hate).  But I believe if this does occur, it is at a much slower pace than what is found on the earth plane. 

I should also note that Spooky mentions quantum mechanics, and admits that using quantum models, there is an uncertainty thrown into the mix (the same electron being in two different places at the same time, etc.).   This concept has always made me humble to never assume that anything is written in stone.  Newton's billiard balls of physics were found not to apply in a strict sense to the most basic building blocks of physical reality.

So I can attest to the presence of my own pure perceptive state in deep meditation, and to the existence of my own consciousness and free will during that state.  In its most pure state, that "is"ness or being is devoid of history; it becomes irrelevant what circumstances came about in my earthly life which cultivated that state of spiritual being, because it simply "is."  And it chooses to go get a cup of coffee.

Matthew

recoverer wrote on Nov 8^th, 2011 at 10:41pm:

Regarding the time conundrum, just because all decisions we ever make happen in the same now

What does it mean? Because the controversy about free will is strongly tied to philosophy of time and space. We need to explore that.

Roman:

The entirety of the sentence you quoted reads: "Regarding the time conundrum, just because all decisions we ever make happen in the same now, this doesn't mean free will wasn't available each time we made a decision."

Some people conclude that because all of time exists simultaneosly everything is predetermined and therefore freewill doesn't exist. My response to this unexamined misconception is that time doesn't have to exist in a chronological way in order for it to be possible to make decisions on each occasion the need occurs.

If we respond to a need with a mind that is overladen with psychological conditioning and emotional attachments we won't be able to decide with freedom. If we understand the importance of deciding with freedom and do our best to not be influenced by our psychological conditioning and emotional attachments, we are likely to decide with freedom.

It isn't an all or nothing process, which is a form of absolutism some people unfortunately get into. Such absolutism is often based on supposed sophisticated thinking, rather than a person looking within and seeing what his (or her) experience tells him. If a person examines himself closely he will see that he can use his will to decide "freely" as much as he allows himself to do so.




Roman wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:24am:

recoverer wrote on Nov 8th, 2011 at 10:41pm: Regarding the time conundrum, just because all decisions we ever make happen in the same now What does it mean? Because the controversy about free will is strongly tied to philosophy of time and space. We need to explore that.

recoverer wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:06pm:

Some people conclude that because all of time exists simultaneosly everything is predetermined and therefore freewill doesn't exist.

But that's entirely erroneous. Presentism is a true nature of existence. What a pity the scientific community has yet to realize that Eisenstein's Block Universe concept isn't true - there will be no progress to our technology.

Since future doesn't exist no one knows what' next.

Regarding physics based theories, attached is an interesting article. Physicists are human too, and sometimes they have a hard time seeing beyond what their psychological conditioning and emotional attachments allow.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=1532


Roman wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 3:43pm:

recoverer wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 2:06pm: Some people conclude that because all of time exists simultaneosly everything is predetermined and therefore freewill doesn't exist. But that's entirely erroneous. Presentism is a true nature of existence. What a pity the scientific community has yet to realize that Eisenstein's Block Universe concept isn't true - there will be no progress to our technology. Since future doesn't exist no one knows what' next.

Matthew:

Thanks a lot for putting it so beautifully into words!


DocM wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:44am:

The cause and effect theory of no free will no longer applies (though it did in ego based earthly life).

I know the same from meditation.
In spontaneity there is no duality of free will or no free will, there are no dualistic thoughts.
The concept of free will needs ego as its basis.
When ego is absent, then no concept of free will exists.
I tend to believe that ego is a temporary construct, conducive to development of a personality, an individuality, in a certain phase of evolution. In the next phase of evolution, the ego construct is no longer needed.

Different people mean different things when they say "ego," but I believe people need to be careful about what they mean.

If one means the self-centered part of self, I believe it is fine to overcome it. But if one means "a sense of individuality" I believe it is a big mistake to try to overcome this sense.

Despite what some self-proclaimed enlightened people say, a sense-of-self doesn't cause us to be separate from each other. Rather, a self-centered approach does.

Each of us does exist as a soul who is able to learn and accumulate knowledge.  Such knowledge enables us to see the advantages of choosing humility over arrogance, love over hate and self-centerdness, and free will over reactivity.

Individuality, uniqueness, the ability to evolve as a soul, is not an evil thing.

One of the reasons I speak out against gurus is because they got so many people confused about this ego business.  It is possible to have a detailed paradigm of what ego is all about without such a paradigm having an accurate and factual basis. Overcoming self-centerdness and overcoming one's sense of individuality is not the same thing.

When it comes to free will, each of us is "very" definitely a soul who has the ability to use our free will in a wise and loving way, once we learn to do so. Being a part of a surrounding environment doesn't negate this fact because each of us is free to respond to environmental circumstances in the way we choose.  If we didn't have the option of choosing in a way that is to some degree independent of the circumstances we find ourselves in, then each of us would respond to the same circumstances in the exact same way. The wiser our soul  has become, the better we'll be able to choosing wisely.




wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 4:07pm:

Matthew: Thanks a lot for putting it so beautifully into words! DocM wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:44am: The cause and effect theory of no free will no longer applies (though it did in ego based earthly life).  I know the same from meditation. In spontaneity there is no duality of free will or no free will, there are no dualistic thoughts. The concept of free will needs ego as its basis. When ego is absent, then no concept of free will exists. I tend to believe that ego is a temporary construct, conducive to development of a personality, an individuality, in a certain phase of evolution. In the next phase of evolution, the ego construct is no longer needed.

Here's another thought:

If as some people on this thread contend there is no free will, then it is very possible that nobody is presenting a viewpoint that represents actual wisdom, because each of us is presenting nothing more than a conditioned response.

I say this with the thought that there can't be a such thing as "true wisdom" if all we are capable of is a conditioned thought.

On the other hand, if we forget about what the so-called wisdom masters say, and don't limit ourselves to a part of mind that considers the cause and effect conundrum, we might be able to see what our experience tells us. Perhaps we'll notice that when we do something such as respond to a difficult situation, if we allow ourselves to, we can decide according to what best serves the situation, rather than according to an inappropriate pattern of mind that comes from a place such as our self-defense instinct.

Another point I believe is well worth making is that just because we can meditate in a way where we can experience what our awareness aspect of self is like before it causes anything to become manifest, this doesn't mean that this part of self represents the totality of who we are.  The ability to love, learn and decide is just as much a part of who we are as the part of ourself that is aware. In order to be a fully functioning being we need each part.  Since each part is a part of who we are,  each part is real.

I've known of numerous people who became so enamored with the awareness part of self, that they end up feeling as if they have to deny the other parts of themselves in order to embrace the awareness part of self. This is a big mistake.  We don't obtain one part of self by pushing away and denying other parts of self.  It is more about where our heart is. The more we choose a love-based approach to life, the more we'll find that it is impossible to be seperated from our divine self, even if we make use of our mind and creative aspects of being, and acknowledge our uniqueness.

We don't need a blank state of mind in order to know ourself. We can't become aware of awareness, but we can know about love. We use our awareness to experience love. We especially experience love when we "DECIDE" to "CHOOSE" love. Perhaps this duality, and even more dualities, are okay.

recoverer:

Yes, I mean ego and self in the way you use these terms, and I fully agree to what you write.
Ego as self-centeredness is a temporary construct to develop a stable individual self, thereafter ego can be shed off, like when a bird hatches from the egg. If the bird would cling to the egg, or the baby to the womb, it would do no good. If bird leaves the egg too soon, or baby the womb, also not good.
Free will is relative to the perspective. From self-centered perpective, free will is a valid view, relatively real, not more, not less. From a holistic perspective, viewing the individual self as integral part of the whole of creation, free will is no valid concept. Then the self is like a cell in a body, and although the individual cells may be viewed separately as operating entities in an environment, seemingly taking decisions and actions separately, the holistic view is that of a hologram type of consciousness of the body wherein all individual cells are but fragments of a hologram, they all display the whole holographic image. Then there is no contradiction between individuality and wholeness, and thus no contradiction between free will and no free will, because the will of the cell is always in accord to the will of the whole, and then there cannot be a notion of the will of the cell to be free or not free.
I think that we are in the late stages of an evolutionary process from self-centeredness to holistic consciousness, opening more and more to holistic consciousness and its energetic expression PUL.
I would regard "free will" as necessary means for development by taking decisions and actions and receiving and processing the feedback of our actions by consequences in a cause-effect-feedback-system.
I think "free will" is directly related to the temporary construct of self-centeredness and illusion of separation.

Oliver:

Thank you for clarifying. Good egg analogy. :)

Hi  I have always seen freewill that god gave us,as meaning we make our own mistakes in life,wrong decisions and we cannot blame anyone only ourselves.

Freewill is the essence of everything that exists on this earth plain,it is there for each and everyone to experience life there own way(hence the life review when we die).

That's exactly what life is all about,whatever you do on this earth as a person,then you have to experience every wrong decision and every right decision,through your life review,so you know personally ,what sort of human being you really were.

God gave us this choice,so at times when God is blamed for something,hes not to blame,we are,we used the freewill he gave us.

No matter what any of us say about freewill,the whole truth for all of us , we answer to ourselves.

I say all this but some on this earth have there freewill taken away from them,women that marry a sad person what tries  to control  them,till they cant take anymore.

They either end up with mental health issues and the divorce statistics start growing again,don't get me wrong,i'm not saying all men are like that,but they are out there and i admit women can treat men like that as well.

This is just one of the examples of one individual taking away from another individual, the right to freewill.

There are so many rights and wrongs in this world,that i dont think their's any real answers or explanations for freewill,we are who we are and thats all we can be.

love and god bless   love juditha