Once upon a time, a Big Bang happened and you had no choice
in that.
This resulted in an expanding universe that unfolded regardless of
whether you wanted it to or not. Then cooled protons and neutrons did their usual
thing by crashing into one another and in a short 380,000 yrs matter cooled
down a bit and there was a period of darkness, after which stars and galaxies
formed and, of course, you had no choice in that either. Some days you may wish
you were dead (post-modern society is pretty much the walking dead), but
because this sheit happened as it did, you were allowed to live.
The solar system
you reside in formed up about 9 billion years after the BB and is about 4.6
billion yrs old. The planet you reside on began popping out simple organic
compounds in a “soup” from which more complex organic compounds formed.
You could not have changed or altered this sequence of events, simply because “you” did not exist. But you were in that primordial soup, nonetheless, and the entire sequence of events would one day result in the “you” that you are right now. But, it all had to happen exactly as it did for you to reach this very moment that you’re now in.
Of course, my description is highly simplistic; because
there was all kindsa crazy sheit going down before “you” were non-volitionally
thrust into the world in the form you are in now and, alas, you had no choice
in any of it. However, from this organic soup “you” would eventually make your appearance,
although you would go through many forms before appearing as “you” do now and how you
appear now you had ZERO choice in altering or redirecting in anyway. You had no
choice in your current body type, nor in the formation of the first neuron that
arose from the embryonic goop that was eventually to cluster up in a tangled
web of circuitry in your brain, providing millions of “thought” impulses that
have, for years, resulted in action (albeit, mostly useless, but with justifying circuitry also in place).
But you proudly assert that you have a choice in what happens to you.
You actually claim that you have the power to alter your destiny, as if the
universe suddenly, in exasperation with your fooking complaints, said “okay
fine! Do whatever you want. I set thee free” You negate the power of billions of eons of
unfolding life, by demanding that you now have a say in what happens to you and
that you have the power to shape a destiny that you had no power to initiate
and no choice in leaving.
Life has been causally unfolding long before you existed and the direction you now take is as causally predetermined as the
primordial soup that, over billions of years, would eventually grant you the capacity to manifest.
Without the Big Bang you’d be without a big brain and
without a big brain, you would not be experiencing the very “thought” impulses
that you are this very minute.
So in what way are your “thought” impulses separate from
this predetermined order giving you the power, external from that order, to experience electro-chemical "thought" impulses, completely free and autonomous from
that predetermined causal order?
If you had no personal responsibility for the manifestation
of the universe and the direction it took resulting in the manifestation of “you,”
how is it you now suddenly have personal responsibility for the direction
you are currently on? Where is the causal order taking you based on the
autonomous choices you believe you make every day? Did the predetermined causal
order dupe you into thinking you had personal responsibility for your existence
after it granted you that existence? Is the predetermined causal order having a
good laugh at your expense?
Ha!
The rise and fall of entire civilizations had to occur for
you to exist today. Millions of generations had to live and die and billions of
people had to interact exactly as they did to bring you to this very moment.
If certain specific interactions did not occur the year before you were born, "you" would NOT exist. Your parents and their parents and their parents before them, and all those who
existed prior, needed to engage reality exactly as they did for you to exist exactly as
you now do. As our illustrious president proclaims…”you didn’t build that.”
Events and situations must have occurred exactly the way they did for you to experience this very moment and every following moment will occur exactly as it must for the next to occur exactly as it will and this process is infinite, beginning before your birth and continuing on after the worms have consumed you.
Every
generation before you had to think the exact thoughts they did, resulting in the exact conditions necessary for you to exist and have the thoughts you have in
this moment. You had no choice in anything that preceded you and you have no
choice in what follows, because what follows is determined by what preceded.
There is no cause and effect, because every cause is itself a cause. The
sequence is infinite. Cause is the cause of the cause.
Every neuro-circuit in your grey matter is genetically
predetermined and every thought impulse that arises in your brain entirely
inevitable. The next thought that arises is as inevitable as the last. You are an inevitable product of an unfolding predetermined causal
reality and you have no WILL separate from that infinitely unfolding process
and your belief that you have an autonomous will that is free of that causal
order is caused by that order and there is absolutely NO possibility of escape, because even escape would be preordained.
There are no coincidences in your life. Everything experienced and everything learned had to be learned and experienced exactly as it did for you to have this moment exactly as it is right this moment.
There are no random events and nothing occurs by chance.
Everyone you have met and every single interaction had to occur exactly as it
did to get here now. Every trauma and every joy was merely waiting to manifest exactly as it
did and much more is still waiting and will appear when the variables and
factors are aligned exactly as they must for that experience to be engaged as
it must and will be.
Can you see the pattern?
Not one thought impulse in your grey matter has occurred
autonomous from the causal order that makes it possible to "think" at all. Every thought that
results in a choice being made will be thought exactly as it must so that the
choice can be made by you as you must make it.
So relax, kick back, make choices, do things, feel proud, be
disappointed, get irate, laugh a lot, demand to be free and then die.
It’s all predetermined.
“ Is the predetermined causal order having a good laugh at your expense? “
ReplyDeleteHell yh !
That human life must be some kind of mistake is sufficiently proved by the simple observation that man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy; that their satisfaction achieves nothing but a painless condition in which he is only given over to boredom; and that boredom is a direct proof that existence is in itself valueless, for boredom is nothing other than the sensation of the emptiness of existence.
ReplyDeleteWe complain of the darkness in which we live out our lives; we do not understand the nature of existence in general; we especially do not know the relation of our own self to the rest of existence. Not only is our life short, our knowledge is limited entirely to it, since we can see neither back before our birth nor out beyond our death, so that our consciousness is as it were a lightning-flash momentarily illumination the night….
— Schopenhauer —
Great quote Abe...
ReplyDeleteGood article, you get my vote: Free-will is an illusion. As for the Schopenhauer quote, not so much (not picking on you Abe, just it's not for me). The quote is a good description of the mind, or in your preferred nomenclature, Mike, the 'brain''s subjective aspect. By what criteria do we judge human life to be a mistake? By the alleged fact that the 'needs' deemed necessary by the very brains which devised them are ''hard to satisfy''? Seems like a perfect example of the egocentric, 'woe is me' (literally) attitude you sometimes like to send up, Mike. Boredom is a subjective state which is usually (or arguably, always) brought on by a mind which is not paying adequate attention to proceedings. It proves nothing of the sort of being 'valueless'. It merely proves that the mind (a tiny portion of what is) finds the present, spontaneous effulgence of life uninteresting because it is not adhering to preconceived ideas/expectations of what it should look like.
ReplyDeleteGiven the thrust of your article you may find the word 'spontaneous' misplaced, however is it not the case in direct experience without the conceptual overlay of cause and effect superimposed on it? The universe is alive; this can be felt directly, it can't not be felt, but it is more so felt when the mind's seemingly incessant arbitrary designations and insistences on what is perceived to be happening are divested of attention. Not all 'spirituality' is concerned with elevating ''egocentric-mammalia'' to some higher status. It's saying that what you fundamentally are is aware of the apparent human being. It doesn't need to be extricated from the causal order, 'it' was never in it.
Taking yourself to be a limited person only, -does- often suck. The more it's investigated though the more it can be seen that you never were that limited individual; it's made of beliefs. Palliative, relative solutions such as taking on the attitude that all is preordained is a good step. But why not investigate whether it is true -beyond all doubt- that we really are these little helpless monkeys running around waiting to get squished, and this is the end of story, or not?
I don't wish to sound didactic or self-important. It's just that sometimes the insistence on seeing things from one particular perspective and asserting that anyone else who voices anything alternative is necessarily woo woo and away with the fairies seems rather dogmatic. I'm not writing from a point of view of 'hoping things are a certain way' (though in the past that has not been unfamiliar to me I'll admit), I don't really care if things are as limited as they seem from the mind's perspective these days. Shit happens. Increasingly I'm just finding that limited world-views are reduced to dust in the face of what this is. It seems like arrogance to assert that we know enough about anything to deem it either supremely worthwhile or a terrible, cosmic mistake.
Not here to lecture you btw, just offering another point of view. I'm saying to investigate not on the level of mind, however. The mind is cybernetic and needs objectives and goals. Finding these lacking on the grand scale (which intelligent minds such as your own are want to do) people tend to ascribe this pointlessness to everything, at the level of the mind's ascribing. I'm saying perhaps ignore the mind for a while and see how things seem then. My 2 cents.
Cheers,
Gabriel
"It's just that sometimes the insistence on seeing things from one particular perspective and asserting that anyone else who voices anything alternative is necessarily woo woo and away with the fairies seems rather dogmatic."
ReplyDeleteI've investigated numerous other perspectives (many are throughout this blog) and they have all led me here. Since, I have no free-will, we can simply say that the point I have now arrived is nothing more than a sequence of circuits, each influencing and building upon others. I have engaged numerous spiritual ideologies and experiences to get here and each one influenced the next. The journey is neurological and had nothing to do with any free-willed autonomous choices. This can be determined simply by analyzing the influences, since birth, that brought one to this very moment.
With a trillion electro-chemical impulses firing off in the brain in any one second, in what way can we assert free-will? In what way can we assert personal responsibility?
You and I will do what we're programmed to do and that programming happened long before you and I even existed because it was what came before that determined what it now. There is no exit from this predetermined causal order.
That was the general gist of the post.
Thanks!
Mike
I'm with you on that aspect, Mike. Sorry to take it a bit off topic, but then, I suppose I had no choice... ;)
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Gabriel
The brain is surely the hardware of me, the psychological view of myself is more akin to a software. Whether I am talking of myself in biological terms, in terms of the gross anatomy/histology/neurology etc. or whether I am talking about myself as a psycholgical or mental process, either way at the end of the day I as some description or understanding is in the end just another thought based story or concept/image. No matter how much more accurate one concept is over another, it will eventually be outdated and new info. will come in, either updating this current theory or completely demolishing it. To base an identity on I as some non free willed 'thing' being run by my biology seems a bit off. I used to believe this myself until a friend of mine pointed out 'are you different or other then your biology?' Yes the insight brought about from that questions is also another story 'I and my biology are one, non-dual blah blah blah'. But it does point out a very interesting and in my view an undeniable fact. That as far as I can tell I am synonymous with my physical body/brain/cells/organs/psychology. If any of these aspects are altered I can Imagine my experience of the world would be fundamentally altered. Now on my part this is only speculation but what seems to me what advaita/vendata mainly says after all the long jargon is that there is some part of us that is more fundamental, unchanging, and this is truly what we are, 'the experiencing/awareness/I-ness whatever you want to call it. As far as I can tell that may or may not be true, for instance if I was to get into a bad car accident and have traumatic brain injury, functionally i would be incapacitated to a degree depending on the severity. I may have a significant cognitive decline, the experience may be very uncomfortable, but would the sense of 'I' change or be different? My instinct tells me that there would be an aspect of my self that remains unchanged. Ofcourse that does not help at all in the practical aspects of my life. If my biology is fucked up, then my functioning will also be fucked up, but maybe to see this may bring on some peace for certain people. As far as when this brain is shut off during anesthesia I have no experience of anything, no I-ness no individuality etc. and thus from that perspective all this is just more bullshit. For me being clear on my 'I-ness' seems to bring about some clarity to my thinking process during the waking state, which if any of this stuff has any value then thats probably about it.
ReplyDeleteI dont feel there is anything special or spiritual about any of this 'enlightenment' stuff in the sense that this does not make someone a more significant or special human being over another, however at the same time we cannot deny that the impact of certain experiences whether they be induced by drugs or contemplation/meditation etc, that this does not in some way alter the hardware, and maybe even for a better functioning. If we are living this life anyways why not try to ride in a more comfy vehicle. Whether that comfort is brought about through proper nutrition/exercise o certain medatitve practices etc. None is 'higher' then the other but that does not discount its practical impact.
To further continue with the computer analogy of the hardware/software, if we are running too many programs the computer hardware can get fucked up through over heating. Running disk defragmentaiton and clearning up the junk clutter, seems to help the hardware run more efficiently, so why not?
I enjoy the comments section especially on this blog as its free of the normal spiritual languaging. For me this is just my sense of things and it may change, who knows. As I have no other avenue of sharing at this time, I am just putting this on your website. Blogging seems to be an interesting way to pass the time.
hope your well bro. peace.
"I'm with you on that aspect, Mike. Sorry to take it a bit off topic, but then, I suppose I had no choice... ;)"
ReplyDeleteNo problemo Gabriel. You had some good points in there that will most likely percolate thru the circuits here and who knows what will result.
: )
Mike
Hey sunny,
ReplyDelete"...for instance if I was to get into a bad car accident and have traumatic brain injury, functionally i would be incapacitated to a degree depending on the severity. I may have a significant cognitive decline, the experience may be very uncomfortable, but would the sense of 'I' change or be different?"
Not sure. However, with Alzheimers patients the sense of 'I-me' slowly disintegrates as the circuits shut down, which seems to posit that without electrochemical current, an 'I-me' cannot exist within the circuitry. This eventually results in the shutdown of bodily processes as well.
"To further continue with the computer analogy of the hardware/software, if we are running too many programs the computer hardware can get fucked up through over heating. Running disk defragmentaiton and clearning up the junk clutter, seems to help the hardware run more efficiently, so why not?"
I tend to agree with that (based on my current circuitry, LOL). There is only so much space in the human cranium and each experience impacts upon the brain resulting in more circuit connections. With the pace of post-modern technology, will we one day hit circuit overload? Will the ever increasing complexity result in a complete shutdown of the processor due to contradictory information?
Great stuff.
Thanks!
Mike
"The sequence is infinite."
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that the sequence is infinite? Doesn't that imply that the chain of causes as a whole and existence itself (not the universe, but existence) are without cause? Does your theory not contradict itself? If not, what is my error?
What were the other perspectives you've investigated?
Hi Jonathan,
ReplyDelete"How do you know that the sequence is infinite?"
It continues on to this day and what arises here will influence what arises after, even when I am gone (because what I am now was entirely influenced by what others were before me)
"Doesn't that imply that the chain of causes as a whole and existence itself (not the universe, but existence) are without cause?"
That's a good point. It does seem that one cannot fathom a 'reason' for a causal order, but if one analyzes the antecedents of all actions, a causal stream becomes apparent. As in, nothing occurs without an antecedent prior influence. Hence, utilizing a 'spiritual' perspective, the assumption is that whatever happens is supposed to happen exactly as it did leading to a surrender of free-will and the acceptance of a 'will' external to self, but that directs self nevertheless. Thus, free-will is negated and given over to an, as of yet, undisclosed 'will,' that discloses itself once the idea of 'free-will' is surrendered.
As far as other perspectives are concerned, I spent the last 30 yrs exploring Zen, Hindu and numerous non-duality (advaita) ideologies and much more, only to realize that these explorations were not under my control but, in fact, each exploration advanced the next, until I arrived here.
Good points Jonathan.
Thanks!
Mike
When I asked about the sequence being infinite, I was really asking about whether it stretched infinitely backwards in time. With your model, we can conclude that every link in the chain is dependent not only on the link which immediately precedes it, but on every link that precedes it (of which there are an apparently infinite number). The issue that I see is that the model is based on an idea that is unobservable and inconceivable because of our apparently finite ability to observe and hold information in our minds (we can only approximate the idea of infinity but can't truly conceive of it). Do you not think that's problematic? Is there anything that science has confirmed as being actually infinite?
ReplyDeleteThe bigger problem, as I see it, is that, even if you want to say that our observations are sufficiently effective so that we actually know what's out "there" (I suggest that we have no way of knowing how effective our observations are), causality doesn't present itself in the observation of physical phenomena. Instead we observe two events, with the appearance of one preceding the other, and we fill in the blanks with assumptions to determine that a causal relationship exists. For example, if we observe a pool ball colliding with another, we observe what we call a "ball," doing what we call "rolling," until what we call "hitting" happens with a second "ball," and then we see the second "ball" start to "roll." It is not until we insert the assumption that the first ball transferred its movement to the second that we see the situation as being causal.
When you say "undisclosed will," are you referring to an ethereal conscious presence or were you just personifying the chain of causes?
"Do you not think that's problematic?"
ReplyDeleteYes, theoretically problematic. What is apparent is that I am following a will that is not my own and everything in my life up to this point is indicative to me that I have no free-will of my own. I do not posit a prime mover, merely that it is not and has never been me. I ask that folks merely analyze the linear trajectory of their lives from birth to now and one may see that they have never asserted a choice that was free of influence from a causal order that is apparently predetermined. The patterns are available for observation if one so chooses. However, even that choice is not free from influence. The neural circuitry always chooses for you, because there is no "you" in there.
Thanks!
Mike
You love ignoring my main points, don't you? In case you missed it, it's this: causality is not evident through the observation of physical phenomena alone. It's not until we add assumptions about causes that we "see" causal relationships between phenomena.
ReplyDeleteContrasting 1) a rolling pool ball colliding with a stationary pool ball with 2) a pool ball hitting a side rail, the stationary ball would move, whereas the rail would essentially not move. Using these observations, we would make assumptions about the natures of pool balls and rails (like that the ball is lighter than the rail, things that are lighter require less force to move, defining what force is, an assumption to explain the relationship between the rail, the table, and the ground, etc., etc., etc.) to explain what we saw, but nowhere in the actual observations did these assumptions exist. We might be able to get more information by weighing the balls or the table or taking more measurements, but for each new piece of information we take in, more assumptions are required for the logic to be complete.
For whatever reason, we, as humans, constantly feel the need to add assumptions in order to make things make sense.
Jonathan,
ReplyDelete"For whatever reason, we, as humans, constantly feel the need to add assumptions in order to make things make sense."
Agreed. I would only add that this "sense" is based on episodic data and fails to include a broader picture, which would identify influences that came before. There are always prior influences. Nothing is free of influence.Hence, everything is preordained or predetermined. I imagine there is a "God" in all this, but that is beyond the scope of what I address here. If, ultimately, on recognition of an absolute absence of free-will, that recognition results in an "enlightenment" episode, then that too was predetermined.
I feel that to discuss causal relationships in the micro might miss the macro. But I apologize if I miss the gist of your theory, but encourage you to continue to aid me in understanding what you wish to show since it may help with my own ideas.
Thanks!
Mike
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how else to explain it, but I'll try one more time. Let me know if there's something you disagree with.
We take in information about the world via our five senses. We use our minds to organize that information in such a way that that sensory data has greater meaning and makes more sense, i.e., we create constructs (i.e., concepts, but I'm using "construct" because "concept" sounds more purely mental) from that sensory data. One type of construct is the identification of causal relationships. Using the pool balls example again, we see what happens when a ball hits another versus when a ball hits a rail. We pick up the ball and then [try to] pick up the table. We feel the surface of the balls. We combine all of this sensory data (e.g., our mental picture, the feeling of smoothness, the feeling of weight) to determine that a lighter, smoothly shaped object is more likely (than a heavier object) to move when another object collides with it, but that information does not exist in the sensory data alone. As information, it is of a different order than the underlying sensory data and it is an assumption about the nature of the objects in the example, which are also constructs from sensory data.
Possibly the only reason that we determine that things have causal relationships is that certain assumptions about cause have predictive power, but that doesn't change the fact that causality doesn't inherently exist in sensory data. At best, the relationship that we see looks something like this:
Sensory data -> construct of causality -> sensory data
If you want to take the next step and look at the whole scale of what's happening when we perceive a rolling ball striking a stationary ball, it looks something like this:
Construct of rolling ball + construct of stationary ball + construct of contact -> construct of causality -> construct of previously stationary ball moving
I say "construct" because we combine the individual pieces of sensory data to create a new meaning of "ball." To get back to the point that I was making in an earlier blog entry, the creation of constructs from sensory datay (and I believe even the observation of sensory data alone) is a subjective process. There are so many interesting and important points that could be made around this topic, but the overarching point that I'm making with respect to causality is that anything you experience or determine about the external world, including causality, is subjective.
Bueller?
Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day. - Slartibartfast
ReplyDelete"Construct of rolling ball + construct of stationary ball + construct of contact -> construct of causality -> construct of previously stationary ball moving"
ReplyDeleteSo nothing is caused, we just think it is? There are no causes, just constructs? If 10 people observe a ball hitting another ball, these are merely subjectively agreed upon constructs and it never really happened at all?
"I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it,"
ReplyDeleteExactly. If there is no free-will, then we're gonna do what we do no matter, since without free-will there are only predetermined waves of causality and we're riding those waves to wherever they take us.
Thanks!
Mike
I’m not saying that nothing is caused. I’m saying that the cause isn’t inherent in the sensory data, but is a subjective perception/assumption used to make the sensory data make sense.
ReplyDeleteFrom the perspective of an individual, which, seemingly, is the only one any of us have ever had (none of us have ever exited our minds) and so, effectively, it’s the only one that exists for the person asking the question, there isn’t a construct of a ball and then 10 people agreeing on it – there’s a construct of a ball and then a construct of 10 people agreeing on it.
I personally think that what we experience is the only reality there is, which means that if you perceive everything to be steps in a chain of cause and effect, you are essentially right and if I experience all of my decisions as based in free will, then I am essentially right. What I’m suggesting is that, because the reality we live in is based on perception, it’s not exactly fixed. Find a way to change your perception and you change your reality.
I’m sure you will say that there is an objectively real world, regardless of our perceptions of it. Yes, it would seem so, but what I’m saying is that none of us have any truly objective evidence about that world – we only have subjective evidence.
There is no subject or "self" perceiving. There are only objective neuro-chemical brain-states influenced by both external stimuli and already programmed circuitry. Hence, an "experience" is nothing more than different parts of the brain lighting up electrochemically.
ReplyDeleteThis is basically the general theme of the neuro-self posts here. Without seratonin and dopamine, there would be no "happiness" and this goes for many other brain-based states or experiences that are purely synaptic impulses.
A free-willed autonomous agent, or 'self,' does not exist to experience subjectivity. All experiences have been pre-programmed and predetermined by what came before. Since birth, external stimuli have impacted and sculpted the circuitry and, thus, all responses are prepackaged within the circuits. We respond to all cues exactly as we've been programmed to respond.
All brain-based "experiences" are mechanistically reproduced from previously causal influences that predetermined how one would respond in every situation. This is essentially why there is no free-will, just a deluded sense of free agency.
Thanks!
Mike
Mike,
ReplyDeleteAll of your knowledge of the physical world has been derived through experience within a seemingly non-physical mind, or at least a mind that is not physical in the same sense that an object like a ball is physical. Have you ever experienced the world from outside your mind? If you don't know what I mean by this or why I bring this up, then you probably haven't taken a close look at what I'm talking about (maybe you're right about the no free will thing).
Do you know how the brain generates the mind? If so, please explain.
“A free-willed autonomous agent, or ‘self,’ does not exist to experience subjectivity.”
This could be the best thing you’ve said, but I’m probably looking at it from a different angle. The angle that I’m looking at it from is that it’s impossible to step out of one’s perspective so there is only one perspective for any given person. There is only one reality for me and only one reality for you, but my attempt to understand your reality is based on my reality and exists within it.
How did you conclude that there is no self? In what sense is there no self? To say that there’s no self seems to contradict the idea of a world of merciless causality that you’re espousing, which, seemingly, would require “me” to be a physical object in that world if I were to be subject to its causes. Perhaps the definition of self is not what we might think it is, but something is perceiving this conversation we’re having.
There is no non-physical "mind." There are brain states and electrochemical impulses we call "thoughts." processed through circuitry in the language centers of the brain and all these impulses simply arise with no choice or volition. "Mind" is a concept used to describe the aggregate of brain-state experiences to ascribe ownership to a specific brain/body organism. "Self" is a fiction that identifies with brain states and actually believes it chooses specific brain states or "experiences."
ReplyDelete"To say that there’s no self seems to contradict the idea of a world of merciless causality that you’re espousing, which, seemingly, would require “me” to be a physical object in that world if I were to be subject to its causes."
Indeed. "you" are nothing but pure electro-chemical physicality and that physicality is a part of a causal order from which it cannot separate. Self assumes agency and volition. But if, in fact, it is controlled by non-volitional brain states, in what way could there actually be a free-willed self?
The point is that a 'self' assumes free agency or the ability to have personal responsibility to choose its destiny. Yet, all choices are made in the brain and, with 86 billion neurons and trillions of miles of synaptic dendrites transmitting a zillion impulses, in what way is that being directed by a "self"? There is absolutely NO personal responsibility for any action ever taken or taken in the future.
"self" is a complete absurdity (albeit, a necessary one, since we believe we have a 'self' and if the predetermined causal order did not wish for that to be the case, then it would not exist).
Thanks!
Mike
Dude, you're just making up your own definitions.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, your definition of "self" seems unnecessarily restrictive. Regardless of free agency or lack thereof, our consciousnesses are seemingly attached to our bodies, individuals have different traits, different preferences, etc., etc. "Self," like any other word, has a unique definition for each individual based on his experiences, which could include seemingly attached personal traits. For example, different terms that describe "self" might be "tall man," "black girl," "conservative Christian," etc. Even if these traits don't result from choice, they still represent packages of traits that seem to orbit around individual consciousnesses. Anyway, my point about your point being contradictory was based on my definition, which I think is what people usually mean when they say, "I," "me," etc.
You also stated that there is no mind, but you acknowledged that experience exists. The most fundamental quality of the mind is that experience occurs within it. It seems you're taking your definition of "self" and inserting it into the term, "mind." Even if you want to say that the mind is essentially a container of thoughts, one has to experience those thoughts to say that he has a mind.
Let me ask some direct questions:
-Do you think that you have learned anything about the world through any means other than experience and mental constructs thereof?
-If not, would you agree that everything you know is potentially influenced by experience?
-Do you think that your experience of the world is flawless? Have you ever concluded something about the world and later determined that your conclusion was incorrect, perhaps because of experiencing only a limited facet of the subject of your conclusion?
Just so we're crystal clear, I'm not saying that causality doesn't exist (although I am saying it doesn't inherently exist through information gleaned through the senses alone). I am saying that what we take to be facts about the world are derived from experiences. I am also saying that, assuming there is a world external to our experience of it, our capacity for knowledge is limited to our experiences, which are limited to the reach of our senses and thus subject to error. However, if there is no world external to experience, then reality is our experience and that's it. In either case, experience is reality for any individual.
Another problem here is that you are making a blanket statement that would involve the whole of all information that exists and has existed in the universe. As I've said before, an instance of causality is nothing more than an assumption that makes a set of sensory data or constructs thereof "make sense." Even if we assume that causal assumptions are valid, you'd have to know infinitely more than you already know. Essentially, what you're saying is bullshit. Any attempt to understand things on this kind of intellectual level is just an expression of fear. But you're not alone, because I'm doing the same thing.
You can only go where the circuits take you and so, it seems we're in different places right now.
ReplyDeleteNo worries though. It all unfolds exactly as it must and some have come to see the patterns that others have yet to see.
Thanks!
Mike
A volitional self or entity does not make any sense when considered, especially as you have presented it from a more biological perspective. However I dont see how that is synonymous with there being no self. As I have a different and unique experience from you. You have no idea what is going on inside me, as I have no clue as to what your experiencing. To me that sense of separation is very real, not conceptual. Whether this is all a physical electrochemical process or not, I still feel like a self within the skin, looking out into the world, having experiences etc.
ReplyDeleteCan you shed some light on this experience, and how it was you came to see that this is an illusion. I have an intellectual understanding of this, but my experience is still that of a separate self. The only difference seems to be now, after a long time considering this stuff, more and more my life feels like a happening. I see lots of aspects of my life where I try to do this that or the other, and for whatever reason I am unable to, at first I thought I was going crazy, but now I dont even look for an explanation really, other then thats just what happens.
this control illusion feels true to me beyond a intellectual assertion, as I have personally experienced many times in my life where I say or intend one thing, and I do something completely different. But I still cant understand or see through this sense of being a separate isolated individual. Tony parsons to me says it best that 'the sense of being an individual is an energetic thing and not merely an idea or belief.
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
thanks for your writing, I appreciate the clarity that it brings to the often fogginess of my mind (which thankfully seems to be lessoning).
Hi sunny,
ReplyDeleteNot sure how I came to this experience of 'no-self,' other than years of reflecting on choices made and how those choices were not really mine at all. There was not a complete dissolution of the self and there never is. Just a recognition that it simply doesn't matter. Hence, from my experience, hate, fear, depression, guilt and various other affective states slowly seemed to disappear. But if someone goes "yo, mike," I respond as always.
"The only difference seems to be now, after a long time considering this stuff, more and more my life feels like a happening."
I think this accurately encompasses how I live. As if it all is simply happening and no need to fret, cause it is what it is. We surf the predetermined causal waves (which began long before our manifestation). Sometimes I'm not to keen on the ride, but I accept in nonetheless, since I had no choice in how it all got started.
After I wrapped my head around this stuff, I looked for other, much brighter minds than me, to describe to me what this was. There were a few: Jed McKenna, Ramesh Balsekar, Satyam Nadeen (I think that's his name) and a few others, resonated in various ways. But most important are the growing annals of neuroscience. Every day, more and more research pops up telling me that my experience is accurate. I am not the "doer" of anything (Balkesar).
This blog is not very popular and nor is it in any way radical. I write this stuff for 2 reasons. One is that I enjoy writing (not sure how that came about either) and the other is consistent reinforcement of what I see (but most can't yet).
Allow this stuff to percolate amongst your circuits and you might one day find a freedom previously unknown. The time it takes is different for everybody. Took me close to thirty years and countless spiritual adventures (many not so good) to get here.
It was very intoxicating for me when all the circuits seemed to link up. But I recognize that I had no choice in this at all.
Thanks,
Mike
i got me 2 cents!
ReplyDeletealchemy:as above, so below
the big bang is the moment your father`s sperm united with your mother`s egg.
time, it all hinges on time.....have you experienced timelessness?
oh, and welcome, to the cloud of unknowing!