Thursday, December 12, 2013

Freedom is Absent Free-Will...






“The distinction between “higher” and “lower” systems in the brain offers no relief: as the conscious witness of my experience, I no more initiate events in my prefrontal cortex than I cause my heart to beat. There will always be some delay between the first neurophysiological events that kindle my next conscious thought and the thought itself. And even if there weren’t— even if all mental states were truly coincident with their underlying brain states— I cannot decide what I will next think or intend until a thought or intention arises. What will my next mental state be? I do not know— it just happens. Where is the freedom in that?” Harris, Sam (2012-03-06). Free Will (p. 9). Simon & Schuster, Inc.


What will your next ‘thought’ be? You have no ‘idea’ until you think it and what comes up will be influenced entirely by the variables of the moment, such as external stimuli, and your response to those variables will be determined by genetic and socio-cultural programming, all of which you have no control over. In fact, neuroscience is studying how trauma, experienced by your ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc) has genetically shaped your current day neuroses.

It is true that you are a unique little snowflake, but “you” were shaped by preceding events and factors that had to occur to make your existence an actuality. The core ‘self’ is genetically hard-wired in your brain and any changes made are a product of already formed circuitry and, thus, were entirely predetermined. The fact that you quit smoking exactly when you did was preceded by numerous influential factors that shaped that decision right up to the moment it was made.

You struggle mightily against a predetermined causal order in an attempt to wrest some crumbs of control from an indifferent, but infinitely unfolding, universe. Sometimes it seems you have succeeded, only to look back and find that all your failures and successes were pre-scheduled as part of a preordained causal order that began long before you existed, but made your existence possible.

Egocentric ‘control’ is different from the control found in the rest of the natural order. While a lion must control his thinking to acquire an antelope, in order to assuage his instinctual requirements, egocentrica mammalia demands control of his “thoughts” because, as opposed to the instinctual influences evident in the entire natural world, he believes he has free-will over what he thinks and this is his chief delusion and cause of all his suffering.

A lion is certainly in control of his thinking, as he concentrates on the antelope selected for dinner, but this is entirely influenced by the instinctual need to eat and the factual food before him. Hence we cannot say that the lion ‘controls’ his thinking, but that programmed instincts and external conditions specifically control what is thought, when and why, allowing the lion no free-will to think anything other than what is demanded in the moment. His reality is purely factual and there are no fictional considerations for which to concern his thought processes. He need not concern himself with fictional realities, such as what “clothes” to wear for dinner or whether there is enough “money” available to purchase his dinner, because there are no fictional realities involved in filling his belly with food. He has no ‘self’ for which to make fictional preferences as to what antelope he might devour since clearly he will eat the exact one he can most easily catch.

Human egocentrica mammalia thinks that he chooses his thoughts. However, if this were factual, shouldn’t he always ‘think’ only the most advantageous thoughts he could ‘choose’? Why is egocentrica mammalia so fooking miserable? If he can choose his thoughts, why is he then not immensely “happy” every moment of his life, regardless of external conditions? If he can choose each and every thought in his head, why not choose only the most positive and “happy” thoughts? If he can choose a thought before thinking it, why would he choose a thought that causes him to suffer? If he could choose what to think, why think a thoughts that causes anger, anxiety or depression? Why is it so hard for egocentrica mammalians to be “happy” if, in fact, they are in control of their thinking?

The answer is obvious...

Instead, he often thinks thoughts that he would rather not think, but feels compelled nevertheless, because of the suffering those thoughts entail. This demonstrates that he has no free-will to choose his thoughts, because his thinking is entirely owned by the fictional and factual realities of a predetermined causal order that determine his “thoughts” for him and every one of those thoughts are wired up in the circuitry between his ears. Egocentrica mammalian thought processes are often so disparaging and dreadful that he turns to drink and drugs to anesthetize the electro-chemical impulses (thoughts) coursing through his grey matter. An entire fictional world, referred to as “entertainment,” needed to be constructed as a means of distracting him from his own neuro-circuit impulses.

Just like the lion, egocentrica mammalia cannot “think” outside his neuro-circuits and the external conditions that determine which circuits fire up in response to those conditions, thereby, provoking actions and behaviors that the “self” claims are chosen volitionally. This demands that he generate more circuits through a process of “education” which allows him to construct ever more complex fictional realities through which to control his body and his personal world as a means of continually actualizing as fact his fictional ‘self.’ The lion has no fictional ‘self’ wired up in his noggin and, thus, must only give attention to the factual needs of the body. The lion cares not if his thoughts are positive or negative, good or bad, right or wrong. He has no choice in his thinking and moves with the predetermined causal order as that order directs him.

Egocentrica is controlled by his fictional realities, demanding he find ever more ingenious methods to escape that control and thus be in control of the predetermined causal order. “Crime” is a fictional reality that seeks to circumvent fictional “laws” and actualize a fictional ‘self’ outside the predominant fictional realities of the fictionalized social order. But the criminal is as much victim to the fictional realities as those who reverently adhere to the fictional laws. Fictional realities of the social order determine what you ‘think’ and you have never had a choice in that and nor do you have a choice in when you will think what you think as external conditions will prompt conditioned programmed responses to be exactly as they must.

You did not create the fictional realities that currently demand your participation and that give fictional meaning to your factual life by determining how and what to think. I imagine that most people, if they had a choice, would not participate in half the silly social games they now feel compelled to engage with. Fictional realities were thrust upon you with absolutely no choice as to when, where or why. The education and learning of fictional realities packed tightly in your cranium makes all the choices for you based on programmed circuitry that you had no personal responsibility in developing.

The essential fictions were programmed into your head and you now automatically respond from that programming. As much as you try to control your fate, it has already been predetermined, unless of course, the predetermined causal order removes you completely, but you have no choice in that either.

All this may sound fairly bleak; however, for some it could result in a ‘surrender’ to the WILL of a predetermined causal order, but only if the circuits take you there, since it is electro-chemical impulses within fatty tissue that makes choices and not “you.” There is no “you” in there and there never was.

Essentially, a sense of dread and defeatism is often experienced with the realization that every ‘choice’ ever made had to be made exactly as it was, which will inevitably lead to other choices being made exactly has they have to be made. Your ‘life’ is exactly how it should be in this moment based on all the moments that brought you to this moment, because you are always ‘in the moment,’ regardless of how you evaluate what is happening in that moment (also predetermined) and each moment is completely influenced by the moment preceding. You will still make ‘choices,’ but you can rest assured that any choice you make had to be made, regardless of your evaluating it as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ after making it. You cannot act any differently than you do act in any moment, as each moment shapes the context of the next since the very moment the universe first came into being.

There is no reason to feel guilt for actions as all actions happen as they must or they would have happened differently. You may claim that you should have acted differently than you did in any moment, but if you could have acted other than you did, and “you” are in control of your thinking, why did you not choose thoughts that allowed for a different action? What is actually occurring is that you’re simply responding on auto-pilot to external stimuli in ways you have been socio-culturally programmed to respond. There was no volitional ‘choice’ involved at all. Actions impacted upon the grey matter years ago, in turn, determine behaviors occurring in this very moment, just as this very moment conditions the brain for future moments.

You are on a path not of your making, but that path has been unfolding long before you were even born.

Although you are certainly making decisions that provide direction, the decisions are merely programmed responses to external events, both of which are outside your control. You cannot understand the ‘purpose’ of the path you are on because it is interwoven with a trillion other purposes that were predetermined to be followed before you were born to be who you are, that had to be made for you to be who you are, and your path is interwoven with other paths that must be followed simply as a result of your manifesting and being who you are. Make no mistake, entire civilizations had to fall, world wars needed to be waged and millions had to live and die exactly as they did for you to be in this moment right now.

Whether saint or sinner, your only purpose is to go where the circuits take you and you will do that, because you cannot exit from that path because “you” did not choose it, but it was determined for you long before you existed. However, you can live in a state of surprise, in which little control is necessary and you ride the causal waves without predicting or preparing for what unfolds before you. Or not... depending on the circuitry.

Since you have no idea what your next thought will be, there is little need to worry about the future. Unless, of course, that just happens to be your next ‘thought.’ But that’s okay too, since it had to arise exactly as it did, exactly when it did and, hence, there is no need to fret about it unless, of course, you’re wired up to fret about it in the moment you do, which is exactly what was supposed to happen as it obviously did or else it would not have happened exactly as it did.

The predetermined causal waves you ride each and every moment have been occurring long before you came on the scene and will continue long after the worms have completely devoured your rotting carcass. Your actual freedom is defined by the complete absence of free-will in the recognition that your life will unfold exactly as predetermined. There is nothing you need do about it, because there is nothing you can do, but watch it happen exactly as it must and how you evaluate each moment is as much destined to be a part of the next moment as the previous moment’s actually occurring exactly as it did.

Based on circuited responses wired up in your brain, you will either joyously ride the predetermined causal waves or suffer through years of madly swimming for some fictionally safe shoreline. Either way, the choice has never been yours to make, but it will always strangely seem that some nebulous shadowy “I-me” experience is ‘choosing’ to madly pump out ‘thoughts’ within a calcium shell and making choices based on its own free-will. This will seem real until the time comes that it recognizes it has never made a choice that was not part of predetermined causal order outside its control, but that it has never been separate from. In the universal ‘oneness’ of an unfolding causal order, every choice made was predetermined to be made long before the experience of making it had occurred.

Your WILL has never been your own.

18 comments:

  1. More dazzling information on lion psychology. Thanks for that.

    Would you call the below picture fictional?

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/02/article-0-13E3D812000005DC-269_634x519.jpg

    How about this one?

    http://www.balboapark.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/loews-surf-dog-competition-tj.jpg

    How about this one? (Sorry for the grossness, but I wanted to show a more primitive animal)

    http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/p0UKrQQYRJg/hqdefault.jpg

    And just so we don't forget lions:

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01216/lion-hoop_1216638i.jpg

    Aren't all of these animals doing fictional things? Where's the line between fictional and factual?

    People follow society's fictional rules out of fear. That fear is based in a factual desire to survive. Well really, from within the mind (the only place you'll ever be), it's all fictional. I've challenged you to explain how you've remained alive despite seeing your life as fictional, but you seemed to have missed the point.

    Have you considered the effects that quantum theory might have on your theory? I can't say that I'm the most knowledgeable on the topic and I realize that there are many people who perturb what we know about quantum physics to fit theories of consciousness, but, at the least, quantum theory at least inserts a great deal of doubt that things work in the linear, deterministic way that is the basis of your theory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aren't all of these animals doing fictional things?

    Indeed they are. We can train/condition animals to engage in fictional activities. But our immense neural capacity is much more capable of constructing fantasies thru which to self-actualize

    "Where's the line between fictional and factual?"

    For instance, eating is factual, a requirement of survival. Going to a 'grocery store' is fictional. The building and food, etc, are factual arranged to satisfy the fictional activity of 'buying' food for factual consumption. A good book to read might be "The Social Construction of Reality" by Peter Berger, a much brighter mind than I.

    I engage fictional realities just like you. The very 'internet' through which we interact is entirely fictional. It require factual components for fictional purposes. But I am not applying a qualifier, as in good or bad. I actually like the internet, but recognize all the fictional realities it makes available. Ever heard of Bitcoin?

    You seem to think that seeing fictional realities would want to make one commit suicide. I factually eat food purchased in fictional centers called "supermarkets," because in this fictional social order, that's how it's done.

    I find quantum theory interesting (except when explained by Deepak Chopra). Hence, our lives are controlled by 'probabilities' that have nothing to do with any free-will on our part. No worries, just ride the predetermined causal waves...

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not suggesting suicide and never have other than what you might call a passive suicide. To actively commit suicide would be just as fictional. I'm saying that it takes many intentional acts (like eating and having a job) on your part to remain alive. Based on what you've said, it seems that there should at least be a conflict between your so-called factual needs and the idea that there is no reason to prolong your life. Would you agree that your life is fictional in the way that you've defined fictional things?

    Let's take a lion in the wild as an example of a creature that should be completely free of human fictions. If a lion kills and eats a zebra, it will surely eat more of the zebra than the exact minimum required to stay alive. In that sense, the "factual" requirement of hunger represents a single point along a spectrum that contains a potentially infinite number of points with each point representing the exact amount of zebra that the lion could eat. Yet the lion continues to eat. Is this not also fictional?

    I think there's a disconnect between your idea of things being fictional and the idea that everything is just following a predetermined chain of causality. If there's no "self" that needs to remain alive and everything is just "following the circuits," how is eating because of legitimate hunger any different than shopping for bedroom furniture? Why make the distinction?

    When I mentioned quantum theory, I was only pointing out that most who are educated on the topic would agree that our knowledge of quantum physics is sufficient to say that we don't really know what the hell is going on and that linear, deterministic causality does not really explain what's happening.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "To actively commit suicide would be just as fictional"

    Okay, sorry I misinterpreted that and yes, suicide is fictional and mainly based on the failure of other fictions to sustain one, as when one's fictional identity is accosted due to a loss of fictional "money" or a fictional "job."

    "Would you agree that your life is fictional in the way that you've defined fictional things?"

    Absolutely, with no doubt. If you read about Malsow's hierarchy, self-actualization is entirely fictional. Hence, "breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion, etc , are the only requirements of survival. However, at the top of the pyramid, where you and I are, fictional realities come into play, such as morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem-solving, recreation, entertainment, etc. These are made up and have no relevance to survival, but are effective in actualizing a 'self,' beyond bodily physical survival needs. They give meaning...

    "Yet the lion continues to eat. Is this not also fictional?"

    Actually, no. Nature only takes and receives what is necessary and most of the science of zoology and other branches demonstrate this rather conclusively.

    "I think there's a disconnect between your idea of things being fictional and the idea that everything is just following a predetermined chain of causality."

    Possibly. But as of yet, I have not noticed a "disconnect." If you read many of my other posts you will see that I recognize that human egocentric mammalia is doing exactly what he is supposed to do, as he cannot do otherwise. It seems as if the causal order demands he construct, and exist, within fictional realities and he does this with much gusto.

    "If there's no "self" that needs to remain alive and everything is just "following the circuits," how is eating because of legitimate hunger any different than shopping for bedroom furniture?"

    Bedroom furniture does not enhance his survival needs. Fictional realities have nothing to do with survival, but purely with self-actualizing, simply because a 'self' is a very tenuous and fragile idea in the brain, requiring much reinforcement. Whereas a body need only the most basic requirements.

    "When I mentioned quantum theory, I was only pointing out that most who are educated on the topic would agree that our knowledge of quantum physics is sufficient to say that we don't really know what the hell is going on and that linear, deterministic causality does not really explain what's happening."

    True. But, because we don't know, based on Occam's Razor, it is the simplest definition and makes sense to me, based on where my circuits take me.

    However, I sense I am open to a different conditioning should that be the case, based on the fact that in the past I have believed the most outrageous sheit. LOL...

    This current theme seems fairly rigid at present, but I await the surprise of what may come later.

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just to clarify a few things...

    "Actually, no. Nature only takes and receives what is necessary and most of the science of zoology and other branches demonstrate this rather conclusively."

    I'm not so sure about that. I'm no zoologist, but I believe it's common for populations of animals to migrate and wipe out species within the area to which they've migrated. It might appear that animals don't take more than they need, but I think is more likely to be the result of a supply and demand-like evolutionary balance. Over time, a lion's eating habits might appear to orbit around whatever keeps it at a healthy weight, but at any given time, it's eating more than the minimum that it needs because the minimum is a point within a practically infinite spectrum. I guess it's not common, but animals can get fat in the wild and pets get fat all the time. I doubt pet owners are force feeding their pets.

    "Bedroom furniture does not enhance his survival needs. Fictional realities have nothing to do with survival, but purely with self-actualizing, simply because a 'self' is a very tenuous and fragile idea in the brain, requiring much reinforcement. Whereas a body need only the most basic requirements."

    I brought up bedroom furniture because it is indisputably fictional in your terms and I compared it to hunger because that's something you think of as factual. I'm just saying that without self and with everything following a predetermined order, there's no reason to make the distinction.

    So I'm making two points, that 1) the line between factual and fictional is fuzzy at best and 2) if both factual and fictional things result from the same underlying physical reality (i.e., causality), there's no reason to make the distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "So I'm making two points, that 1) the line between factual and fictional is fuzzy at best..."

    I would disagree. When you can see it, it is as clear as day.

    "...if both factual and fictional things result from the same underlying physical reality (i.e., causality), there's no reason to make the distinction."

    Agreed. There really is no reason to make the distinction, simply because nothing can be done to alter or change the situation. Similar to distinguishing between the "awakened" or "enlightened" and the non-enlightened. The relativity of the distinction makes it an absolutely hollow claim.

    Hence, you may then ask...why do I make such distinctions.

    Because I have no choice, since I have no free-will to do otherwise, hence, I do what is willed in the moment it is done, recognizing that will may change next week, tomorrow, in the next hour, the next minute. I have no rigid fixation or need to maintain what I believe from one minute to the next (demonstrated in the 5 yrs of writing this helter skelter blog), simply because my will does not direct this thing I call my "life."

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I would disagree. When you can see it, it is as clear as day."

    I say that it's fuzzy because because a single point within a space that contains an infinite number of points only exists in theory (like how one divided by infinity is essentially zero) and the factual and fictional both occur as subsets of "life" or "experience." If you want to call survival and non-survival actions the result of causality, I'd say they're both factual. If you want to say that survival and non-survival actions are performed for the purpose of prolonging or enhancing the self, they could both be said to be fictional. The debate could go on forever, but I just think it's a meaningless distinction.

    "Because I have no choice, since I have no free-will to do otherwise, hence, I do what is willed in the moment it is done"

    Do you really believe that you have no choice in eating? When you put food in your mouth, is your body operating without your consent?

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.hauntedpress.net/What_is_Enlightenment.html

    Something i'd like to share.

    abe.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Abe,

    Lots to read, but upon perusing some main ideas, looks good...

    Thanks!
    Mke

    ReplyDelete
  10. Abe,

    I'd like to dissect your article a bit. My first response is to feel a bit of resistance to some of what it's saying - I just need to think it through to figure out exactly why that is. Would you care to explain/defend what it's saying if I critique it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Would you care to explain/defend what it's saying if I critique it?"

    I can explain as best I can, but I'm really not into defending anything these days.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  12. "...but I'm really not into defending anything these days."

    How did I know that someone was going to say something like this?

    I hadn't actually read the entire article when I last posted, but I have now and it's pretty clear what's going on. This is a person who read about an idea of enlightenment, perhaps had a certain profound experience that aligned with the idea that he had read about, and then sought that experience repeatedly (he even directly advocates this) until he made it something of a constant reality, all the while secretly thinking that he had achieved something in doing so. This may be a small victory, but he's missing the aspect of spiritual development that's really worth pursuing.

    I've experienced many of the features of what he calls enlightenment and still do to some extent. He is living in the world of shadows and fog, where the world is not alive, he experiences a lack of energy (he calls this laziness), and he can't remember anything. What he calls enlightenment, a psychologist would call derealization and depersonalization and these are just defense mechanisms against pain. After all, if there is no Steve, how can he feel pain? I imagine that feeling like he has an elevated perspective is just a bonus.

    I believe the reason that he experiences the world as lifeless as he describes is that he only allows himself to see sensory phenomenon and he has correctly concluded that no one exists within that sensory phenomenon alone. To see the world as alive and to see meaning requires a level of faith that, in my opinion and experience, is the inevitable result of self-honesty. The lifeless world (the one Steve describes as the world through the eyes of the enlightened) and the world that is alive are both available to consciousness at any given time. The only meaningful form of awakening is the kind that involves slowly choosing to turn towards the latter over the former.

    The paradox that I see is that he is willing to say, for example, that the experience of a carrot is untainted reality, but is unwilling to say that the experience of an observer holds the same kind of reality. He might not currently experience an observer, but he once did. He didn't address the paradox that his previous experience of being an observer was false but also enlightened, as he says all experiences are. Perhaps he thinks that none of his experiences are real (whatever that means), in which case we probably shouldn't take his word for what experience is.

    I think that Steve improperly draws a line between the experience of a self and the experiences of other things. The real paradox is that the self both exists and does not. It exists insofar as it can be experienced and it does not exist in that all contents of experience are external to that which experiences and seemingly any experience can be stepped back from so that there is a separation between the observer and the observed. If one follows a process of self-honesty, the self that is experienced becomes more real and more crystallized over time, but also less important.

    Mike, I'm surprised that you said that you liked the ideas in this article. Although he does talk about things unfolding like you do, the idea that the universe is made of consciousness sounds a lot like an example of someone trying to remove himself from the natural order, an idea that you have criticized in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jonathan,

    Ooops, sorry, but for some reason I thought you were gonna critique my post. but you already have. My bad (long work day).

    However, I can say that with everyone who writes about this stuff you'll find some nuggets of truth.

    I have not read full enough that writer's opinion but intend to do so today and will get back to you.

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't criticize egocentrica mammalia's belief in a free-will separate from the infinitely unfolding, predeterminedc causal order, I merely describe it. The paradox is that egocentrica's belief in making choices free of the causal order is itself a PART of the causal order. If it was not, it would not be at all. I note this in many of my posts.

    However, I recognize there is a terseness in my diction when describing egocentric belief in free-will, since I see it as delusional, but it is a necessary delusion else it simply would not exist.

    I also think you're being a little rough on this author since, like you and I and everyone else, he can only go where the circuits take him. Nobody exits the circuitry experienced in the moment until the next moment, which has obviously been influenced by the previous moment and is why everyone is always in the moment, even when reflecting on the past. This conditioning has been occuring since the first genetically formed neuron transmitted an impulse to the second neuron, forming the gray matter in the brain which was then impacted by countless experiences that sculpted the circuitry from which responses to future experiences would unfold generating more conditioned responses, on and on, moment to moment, ad nauseam. There is no exit, just a wired up experience of having a way out called free-will.

    Thanks!
    mike

    ReplyDelete
  15. So saying that what someone else claims to be true is actually false does not constitute criticism?

    I'm being rough relative to what?

    ReplyDelete
  16. if the whole human body can be understood through science and chemical reactions, then free will is completely destroyed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Unless science points to free will, Abe.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Scene from fight club

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuYxp7-Au4E

    Eric

    ReplyDelete