It’s late and I’m getting tired. I’ve lost track of how many posts I’ve made today. Too many. I give up!

Some of us find it necessary to believe in free will, others don’t.

What I’ve learned form this thread is that people believe what they want to believe, or more precisely, what they need to believe. Accepting the impossibility of free will is a hard pill to swallow.

What I find most interesting is that someone who has always expressed a materialist point of view has vigorously defended free will. I would have expected the opposite.

I also find it interesting that non-materialists who consider “self” to be an illusion still find it necessary to believe that free will is not an illusion. It’s hard for me to see how those two contradictory ideas – self is illusory, free will is not – can be embraced simultaneously. There must be something very frightening or threatening about this idea.

It all depends on how you look at it.

emphasis mine

I find the need for emphasis curious. How can it be any other way? What knowledge is there that have humans ever had that doesn't need that qualifier?

Sometimes I'm suspicious that your interest in that point is to try to give some special credence to assertions about things we DON'T KNOW. Something like: "Since knowledge is always provisional, assertions about new facts are probably RIGHT (or should be taken especially seriously), because we can't be SURE the "old knowledge" is the final truth."

It's the way of thinking used by those who wish to get respect for assertions that come without evidence or support, I find.

From a non-materialist point of view, the self is illusory, but the Self is not. Free will is a fundamental property of the Self, not the self. The self has limited free will as it has been programmed from the moment of birth, conditioned by every stimuluous it encounters. But this does not effect the Self in any form, and thus free will is maintained and can be better accessed the more consciously aware an individual is (the more aware you are, the more access you have to the Self). The best way to activate this is by meditation or being present. It takes practice, but is certainly acheieveable by anyone.

There's nothing frightening about this point at all.

Gibran, benz, entropy, joedirt, swimfriend, saidin, I would really like to know what you guys think about possible levels of will, as I asked a couple of pages back. Because so far discussion has only been "do we have it" or "do we not have it".

Benz, how does conditioning/psychologica complexes enter your idea of free will? You talk about the choice of picking up a glass, but lets say there are two glasses to choose, a green and a red.. And you pick one. What if the reason you picked that one was because of a trauma or some marking experience you dont even remember from your childhood regarding the color of the glass? How can you know its really 'free'? Maybe subjectively it feels like it but that doesnt mean it is, right?

I think will certainly comes in levels. Many people barely appear self aware and thus have little conscious control over their will. Others are very aware and are very deliberate with their choices. This sems to imply that the more aware person has access to more free will? Just random thoughts.

If a choice has a cause, then it isn’t free.

If a choice doesn’t have a cause, then it isn’t free.

Why is this not getting through? How can I state it more simply?


The argument is not an existential one. It isn’t like an “is there a god or not” type of existential argument. It’s an even more fundamental argument: Does the concept logically make any sense? And the answer is NO.

People make choices. The choices they make affect them and their environment. People can grow and develop and become better human beings as the result of their choices, or not. People are able to look at the various options available to them, carefully and thoughtfully weigh the options, and then make a choice. They are able to reflect on the choices they make, and they can think about what might have happened if they made a different choice. Prior to making a choice, there is a feeling of freedom. There is a feeling that any available option can potentially be chosen: “I am free to select from any available option”. Often people can explain why they make the choice they make. Sometimes they can’t.

The fact that free choice is a logical impossibility doesn’t change any of that!

it is definitely interconnected to consciousness; and there certainly is will.
the concept we all seem to debate is what is "free"

Gibran, can it be free-er at least, without being a logical impossibility?

Look at the first two lines of my previous post.

Yes but dont you think there is a difference between someone that is completely run by for example some unconscious trauma, and someone else (or this same person in the future) that does not have all these psychological 'hung ups' and, being as aware as possible, chooses between the different possibilities of influences that are out there (knowing its not an ultimate freedom because of the limits) ? Isnt this some sort of freedom?

it's not that simple, and good luck convincing a courtroom of this rationale.

"sorry, your honor..I did not freely make the choice to murder that man. free will is an impossibility. I was controlled by an immaterial force."

Of course different people have different levels of awareness, different personal histories, different biological makeups, etc. and as a result will behave very differently.

To use a simple analogy, a plant growing in the shade will not develop in the same way as a plant growing in full sun. Does this mean that the healthier plant growing in the sun is freer than the plant in the shade? They are both responding to their environment in the only way they can.


Why would I try to convince a courtroom of this?

If someone raises a pit bull to be violently aggressive, and the dog attacks a young child, it is in the best interest of the community to euthanize the dog.

It is in the best interest of the community to remove murderous people from society. The fact that someone murders tells us that there is something in his makeup that naturally (without free will) led him to murder, and may lead him to murder again.

If a certain type of airplane has a very bad record of crashes, what do we do? Do we say “well, airplanes don’t have free will, so we cant ‘blame’ the airplane, so let’s just keep on flying them!” or do we say “an unknown defect or defects in this type of airplane causes them to crash, so let’s stop flying them until we find and fix the defect”?

inanimate objects do not operate themselves, they also have no prefrontal cortex; neither does a pitbull.
but you mean to tell me a murderer doesn't act upon his/her own accord?
you may as well include consciousness in this consideration, because it is obviously
a factor.
other eukaryotes primarily make decisions based on instinct, this is apparent in how their nervous systems are wired. humans have that unique decision-making center, independent of instinct and logic.

So, someone finally came right out and actually said it... the polarity of self VS Self. I am hardly surprised, as this discussion has largely been, thus far, elucidated upon with such brilliant philosophical hair-splitting... that little has been said of the nature of the mirrored and mysterious dichotomy of ego-self and God-Self. Not so much only the nature of personal, organic self, as Saiden states, but the inclusion of the Universal Self. What I have a predilection for calling the Omniself. For if each individuated being is truly connected to the whole, The Godhead, then freewill would also have a parallel existence, independent of physical cause and effect. We gain a deeper perspective of "self" when seen through the lens of this perspective.

As has been stated by millions of intelligent people before, not just religious zealots operating from a stance of blind faith, there is a direct access into the Omniself. This access is as natural as breathing for our species, yet it is apparently, a rarity with 21st century psychonauts? This seemed more topical and prevalent in the usage of psychedelia during the 1960's-1970's...

Fact is, there appears to be a scarcity of talk about such a miraculous process on the Nexus. Now, if we never move beyond questioning if our subjective impressions of this Indivisible force, the Divine, whether it truly exists or can be perceived by the individuated soul, little can be accomplished about discussing such a plane of being. I truly believe it is a topic which needs to be discussed with earnest. That being said, without the immersion (having a direct merging into this state of mind), little can be understood of it's indivisible reality.

And so, for the sake of friendly argument, let's just say that there is this presence that we might label God or the Indivisible Field of Unified Energy. How would an interphase with such a level of being effect the concept of freewill? For if we are attuned to the Oneness and are shattered by said current of Spirit, who remains the observer? As Patanjali extolled many centuries ago, we are more than merely physical and mental entities... we are living expressions of the Spirit. And so, if awakened, does this Omni-observer have freewill? One must take into account that from the spiritual state of consciousness or universal mind, the relative laws of human thought are quite moot. :idea:

No matter how clever our rationale, we might find that the relative laws which influence the existence of a sentient incarnation, are NOT able to shape the perception of the transcendent Self. Insofar as it has been echoed within the circular game of logic, which has been so prevalent in this discussion, which might imply that it does (or does not/cannot). So if not from the ramifications of manifestation, what causative force influences the freewill of the soul? Possibly the nature of the Divine? Simply put, I believe it to be so, yet, cannot prove so to another being.

Saiden raises a significant point here. Of course, his/her previous points were also most significant but they were applied to the personal, subjective potentiality of the individual's subjective experience in the here and now. I do not think it was speculative, his/her proclamation about there being a repository of freewill in the present moment and it's heart in eternity. Still, it falls into the laws of relativity and subjective interpretation. The last reply shows that quite another level of self is at play in the existential equation. Perhaps, the dual nature of the self is taken into consideration. The existence of the individual self within the expanse of the universal or Omnipotent Self.

I am reminded of the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. His words often stated that the self was illusory and the Self was the only indivisible reality. this 20th century Indian sage was a staunch Advaitist. So if the inclusion of the greater Self is contemplated upon, in reference to freedom of choice, this shifts some of our understanding of freewill into new territory.

Now, this changes everything... or does it really? With this broader assessment, it is plain to see, that without at least entertaining the notion of a living, Omni-conscious Spirit... further discussion is wholly speculative.

Again, we arrive back to the subjective nature of the spiritual experience. The paradigm of immersion within the Divine. Either one has crossed into the realm of Godhead or not. If not, this is just more mental dialog to ponder. If so, and many of us have, there is the profound understanding that the Singularity of Unified Being is the central and most quintessential aspect of awareness, at it's very core.

These words can be interpreted through myriad semantical spins, so only those who have stopped the mind and seen the Clear Light of the Void, will have any true reference point to discuss these levels, with any clarity or authenticity. Is this somehow cause to reject the premise of said observation? Hardly. Anymore than the average lay-person's inability to comprehend advanced mathematics or astrophysics. Saiden uses the dual usage of the word SELF, as it is dealt with within non-dualist theologies like Indian Advaita. In this context, self is meant to identify Atman. One could easily associate Atman with the Western concept of the human soul. That individualized, materially incarnated persona, which inhabits the body and mind of each person.

This idea of Atman is described as a tiny reflected point of light, within a greater collective of lightness. Or if you will, a strand of awareness which is interwoven within the fabric of the one Omni-awareness. The greater collective of light is the greater Self, so to speak. It is important to note that the Self is what is referenced as Ishvara, in the Vedantic cosmology. Ishvara is the manifest expression of the unmanifest and insubstantial being, Brahman. This is largely what the Judea/Christian/Islamic idea of God Almighty is based upon. The Self-aware, aspect of the Eternal Tao.

Brahman exists in the void and so, has nothing which we could possibly refer to as freewill since we are not capable of conceiving of anything which is beyond the dualistic interplay of subject and object. Yet, for not reason which we will ever be able to comprehend, Brahman initiates quantum fluctuations and manifests Divine will. The individual can hardly know the intent of the void, so most of such talk is theoretical. Yet the universe exists and it came form "nothing". The insubstantial causes the substantial for reasons we cannot understand, nor do we really need to understand. This Godhead creates all that we can perceive and far more that we are hard-wired to access.

So, if the Self is a direct manifestation of the insubstantial and indivisible Brahman, the real question is does this force have free will? Is it bound to the same relativity that the individual is? Again, hardly. This contention can be debated for centuries, literally, as it has already been, but just for the sake of objectivity, might we entertain the idea that there is a perceivable symbiosis between the Atman and Ishvara, the self and the Self? Even if one chooses to reject this whole philosophy, it is at least apparent that those who do accept it as a reality, have found ways to enter into conscious union and discover aspects of awareness which are, for lack on any better word, Omniscient.

For to realize that the appearance of things are illusory and that underneath all of the dynamics of the existential paradigm, the Omniself exists in total freedom. This state of being would absolutely include freewill. but how is it free? And is this freedom not also subject to some predetermination? So, if by this premise, we take such a line of thought to the next conclusion, we might just find that we do have freewill ourselves, yet, it is not the same as the freedom to choose what to eat or drink. It is a choice that follows a natural spiritual law. So is it truly freewill? I suspect that there is no such thing, after all. as gibran2 expressed, self and freewill are both, mirages our minds play upon our subjectivity. I do not disagree.

We do seem to have relative freedom of choice and yet, if we are the sum total of our experiences and bound by cause and effect, this too is a illusory. We are challenged to redefine freedom of choice, as paradox matches each step we take in this direction. It appears that only when the self is silenced and the Self is revealed as the interior awareness and nature of being, can freewill have it's full potentiality activated. This "freedom to decide" it not a thought process, however, it is a spontaneous unfolding in the here and now. Like gibran2 says about a flower unfolding by it's very natural state of being. Ultimately, we do choose to awaken. We make such a choice when and only when we have stopped the mind, can this be an option. In no mind, harmony is intuited directly from it's source, God. but is this not to some significant degree a form of predetermination? The will of The Godhead?

Interestingly enough, this would suggest that once again, the issue of freewill come up. Is this predetermined by the Omni-personal aspect of Atman, Ishvara or the Self, which simple KNOWS what to do? Does it simply reflect Divine Law and so has it's directive set in realms of light consciousness? So where is the freedom of choice, if th Omniself makes these decisions based on what is a sort of Cosmic law?

This raises a further query about the nature of freewill. Can it ever truly be free, as in randomly spontaneous, if the Self acts of its own universal volition, by the decree of some Divine mandate? This brigs us to some kind of existential house of mirrors, eh? For at what point was any decision the priority of the individual, Atman? And if Brahman manifests itself within the creation of duality, the interplay between subject and object, WHO is deciding WHAT for WHOM?

It becomes clear that at any level of consciousness, there are causative elements shaping each choice being made. If those choices are culled from sentient, human reason and are founded in logical deduction... they are naturally bound to the laws of cause and effect. So too, if the freedom to choose is culled from the transcendental, intuitive level of being, it is bound by Divine Intention. In both cases, there can be no actual free will, as everything in the dualistic plane of existence is interwoven with specific laws, which define our reality.

So what is this freedom which is suggested, as perceived by existing in the now? If we are attuned to the present in a deep way, we are able to release the burden of making any choices and this sure seems like freedom. Yet, the truth behind this sensation may well be that such a freedom is not our choice at all. It is the will of the Self, the dictate of Divinity. So is this freedom? I suggest that it is a type of freedom. Freedom from the limitations of the self. On quite another level, it is subject to the intent of Spirit and not the kind of "freewill" which makes logical decision making thoughts. It simply is.

The Omniself refracts the light of the Infinite Being in accordance with transcendental aspects of it's unbound being, which we will, as individuals, never know completely. Not as selves in a universe of duality. But we can attune to this current and reflect some of it's truth. For we die subjectively, temporarily, as egos in the process. So who witnesses what? From this side of the looking glass, there is a journey taken, from the other side of the looking glass, each step IS the destination. In a manner of speaking... and purely as a conceptual hypothesis, but of course.



Peace, love & light

The ultimate freedom is not having to choose at all.

I agree wholeheartedly.

To utilize benzyme's construct, imagine that "will" is the prefrontal cortex. The more it contains (in terms of knowledge and understanding) the more "will" it has (in terms of the variety and depth of ideas and actions generated).

But the "will" isn't "free." It's just a point at which information gets worked on in interaction with the "karma" of the prefrontal cortex (it's past history). A "bigger" prefrontal cortex has a bigger/deeper interaction with the universe that it's a part of.

Gibran2 has a narrow definition of free will. If his definition is the only possible one, then he is right.

I don't think many people here realy hold that absolute one-dimensional definition of free will though.

Most people here are smart enough to see that free will can exist in a more subtle way, like endlessness has been hinting at.

If this whole discussion is about the 'religious' concept of free will, then i would say it's all rather pointless in it's obviousness.

But then we would have to accept that in the end the problem of this whole concept is not in the word 'will' but in the word 'free'.
The whole word 'free' is a nonsense-word if you define free as a form of absolute boundlesness.

The word itself is then already a contradiction, regardless of what other words you atach to it; will, nation, people, art, thoughts, market....

Both "free will" and the idea of "non free will" seem equally rediculous. This is a debate that is built out of dualisitc constructs that are man made and satisfy the dualistic part of the brain. Free will makes no sense for obvious reasons and frankly I dont know why anyone would argue against them. It is quite evident that we exist within a system where each individual component is both bound by and relies on other individual components. That is a fact of life and the way it is.

..but to then say that we then have something akin to "non free will" makes just as little sense becasue you cannot logically have the opposite of something that never existed in the first place..you see how this whole thing is about human concepts and symbols? It is important that you understand that I am NOT saying there is no such thing as free will. I am saying that the whole debate is pointless from this angle and suggest approaching it from another angle.

If anything there is (put into man made terms here) a state where both free will and its opposite, non free will exist simultaniousily. At that point one seems to cancel the other out and we are left with just will. That is the way it seems to be and everything else I think is just peoples own egos babbling on. Endless was right with his question in reguards to degrees of will..that is where I think a truely evolved discussion of the topic would be centered.

IMO systems, such as the system as a whole we are embedded within have will. It is dispersed throughout such systems and every individual compont recieves some of it, but it is by no means "free" in the sense that people tend to characterise "free will". That does NOT mean we cannot make what we call a choice and to jump to that conclusion is a very narrow take on the whole thing. The whole topic I see to be something far more complex than what has been touched upon here and would take along time to properly adress so I will stop there.