Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

[NiftyNiblick]

I can't speak for anyone else.

But I do know why I choose to read certain books, watch certain movies, and respond to certain posters rather than others. And I know with precision and clarity why I make those choices rather than others.

I must in all candor respectfully disagree, Cypress.

You believe that you read certain books,
watch certain moves,
and respond to certain posters rather than others as a matter of choice,

and you also believe that you have clarity on the matter.

I can't honestly accept that you really know these things
because if your actions were not caused by something,
they're not subject to scientific analysis.

Without cause and effect, it would would all have to be supernatural
and the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

I will not claim to certainly know this, with or without clarity,
but it very definitely is what I believe.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I mentioned an artist who was gay.

You then simply assume anyone who discusses a gay artist must be gay...

...May I ask why gay people upset you so?

Perry, you not only went ballistic when it was pointed out your artist specialized in homoerotica, but you keep bringing it up. Are you in the closet, Perry? You've never had homosexual sex, but you think about it a lot?

Incorrect. I assume a person who constantly posts about gays and becomes enraged at perceptions of homophobia has some unresolved sexual issues involving homosexuality. It's the 21st Century, Perry. You're free to fuck or suck any other consenting adult(s).

Who other people fuck or suck doesn't upset me, Perry. I'm happily married and am at an age where I have little interest in having sex outside of marriage much less who others, including you, are fucking and/or sucking. It's the fact you keep revisiting homosexuality that interests me, not if you are a practicing homosexual.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I must in all candor respectfully disagree, Cypress.

I will be interested to see how he responds to "disagreement".

You believe that you read certain books,

I sense Cypress only buys books so he can pass his eyes over the pages, put them on a shelf and then spend the rest of the time bragging non-stop about what he's read. Hence he will be quick to tell everyone at every opportunity all the various titles he's read while seldom really discussing the contents. Sometimes he does. But you have to agree with him or he will get angry.

and you also believe that you have clarity on the matter.

In all honestly there's a great NOVA episode about the brain called "Who's In Control" that has a bit questioning exactly how much "free will" we actually have. There's some evidence that our actions are nearly automatic but we very quickly after the fact generate a mental model justifying those actions. It's trippy as hell to think that, but it also makes sense that we respond to stimuli based on our "training set" which is stored in our neural network.

I will not claim to certainly know this, with or without clarity,
but it very definitely is what I believe.

The most concerning point about Cypress' posts on this thread are those where he claims to have such utter control of his thoughts he no longer has a suite of normal human negative thoughts (vide supra). This is, of course, utter bullshit. No one has that much control over their thoughts but everyone CAN easily lie to him or herself. All you need do is watch how quickly Cypress will attack anyone who disagrees with him. I actually raised points earlier (with citation) about 'controlling thoughts' which Cypress didn't respond to but rather decided it was necessary to attack me personally.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Perry, you not only went ballistic when it was pointed out your artist specialized in homoerotica, but you keep bringing it up. Are you in the closet, Perry? You've never had homosexual sex, but you think about it a lot?

Incorrect. I assume a person who constantly posts about gays and becomes enraged at perceptions of homophobia has some unresolved sexual issues involving homosexuality. It's the 21st Century, Perry. You're free to fuck or suck any other consenting adult(s).

Who other people fuck or suck doesn't upset me, Perry. I'm happily married and am at an age where I have little interest in having sex with others much less who they, including you, are fucking and/or sucking. It's the fact you keep revisiting homosexuality that interests me, not if you are a practicing homosexual.

Homophobe says what?

 

[Cypress]

I must in all candor respectfully disagree, Cypress.

You believe that you read certain books,
watch certain moves,
and respond to certain posters rather than others as a matter of choice,

and you also believe that you have clarity on the matter.

I can't honestly accept that you really know these things
because if your actions were not caused by something,
they're not subject to scientific analysis.

Without cause and effect, it would would all have to be supernatural
and the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

I will not claim to certainly know this, with or without clarity,
but it very definitely is what I believe.

That fine if you think that.

I definitely felt like I made very specific choices of the college I went to, the person I married, and the careers I had based on information I had at hande and interests I have cultivated.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

That fine if you think that.

I definitely felt like I made very specific choices of the college I went to, the person I married, and the careers I had based on information I had at hande and interests I have cultivated.

You went to college? Interesting. What was your favorite "career'? I honestly can't get a bead on what you must have done for a living

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I can't speak for anyone else.

But I do know why I choose to read certain books, watch certain movies, and respond to certain posters rather than others. And I know with precision and clarity why I make those choices rather than others.

Back in the '90s when the Human Genome Project, there was a lot of cultural discussion about "designer babies". If parents had a choice in their child's characteristics, they'd naturally choose optimal characteristics such as intelligence, strength and health, but they'd also make cultural choices such as standards of beauty, sexual preference, gender, superficial appearance, etc.

The "Gay Community", as the press called them then, was upset out of concern that parents would choose straight children, over gay. This was before it was clear being gay wasn't strictly genetic, before it was known there was no "gay gene". This conflicted with the cultural battle over whether being gay was a "lifestyle choice" as pushed by Republicans. Something JPP geezers still regurgitate every so often. LOL

A joke from the time is "Democrats believe nothing is genetic* except homosexuality and Republicans believe everything is genetic except homosexuality".

Aking to the "Gay Community", JPP atheists are aligned with the mentally ill in being against the idea of Free Will. They have different reasons but the results are the same: they deny human beings have Free Will, the ability to think for themselves.

The nutjobs dislike Free Will because it makes them accountable for their own actions and desires. The atheists dislike Free Will because it's often associated with God. While I have my own beliefs about there being more to existence than what's in front of one's nose, I disagree that having Free Will must be associated with the supernatural.

IMO, the atheists are stupid to not think this through. The nutjobs are like dogs to a degree; they don't think, they just react. Basic large animal behavior. This is seen in the JPP members who only vent and rarely, if ever, discuss anything not threaded with their rage.

OTOH, Atheists are blinding themselves to the truth that Free Will might be something other than their abhorrence of anything tainted by "God" or religion.


*Genetics, then and now, is Republican code for ranking Americans as being more superior or inferior based upon skin-tone. It's as scientifically valid at determining moral value as using a paint strip from Lowe's as a measure.

 

[Cypress]

Back in the '90s when the Human Genome Project, there was a lot of cultural discussion about "designer babies". If parents had a choice in their child's characteristics, they'd naturally choose optimal characteristics such as intelligence, strength and health, but they'd also make cultural choices such as standards of beauty, sexual preference, gender, superficial appearance, etc.

The "Gay Community", as the press called them then, was upset out of concern that parents would choose straight children, over gay. This was before it was clear being gay wasn't strictly genetic, before it was known there was no "gay gene". This conflicted with the cultural battle over whether being gay was a "lifestyle choice" as pushed by Republicans. Something JPP geezers still regurgitate every so often. LOL

A joke from the time is "Democrats believe nothing is genetic* except homosexuality and Republicans believe everything is genetic except homosexuality".

Like the "Gay Community", JPP atheists are like the mentally ill in both being against the idea of Free Will. They have different reasons but the results are the same: they deny human beings have Free Will, the ability to think for themselves. The nutjobs dislike Free Will because it makes them accountable for their own actions and desires. The atheists dislike Free Will because it's often associated with God. While I have my beliefs about there being more to existence than what's in front of my nose, I disagree that having Free Will must be associated with the supernatural.

IMO, the atheists are stupid to not think this through. The nutjobs are like dogs to a degree; they don't think, they just react. Basic large animal behavior. This is seen in the members who only vent and rarely, if ever, discuss anything not threaded with their rage.

OTOH, Atheists are blinding themselves to the truth that Free Will might be something other than their abhorrence of anything tainted by "God" or religion.


*Genetic, then and now, in American politics usually indicates race and is tinged with ranking of colors like a paint strip at Lowe's.

I do think it's a mistake to conflate free will with Christianity.
I don't think Aristotle, Confucious, Sidartha Gautama would have bothered being teachers if they didn't believe in the role of directed will and choice.

I totally understand the claims of determinists that each cause has an effect, and in principle you could trace each action back in an infinite regress through an infinite series of causes. I am just not convinced that kind of reductionism is a valid way of looking at the human psychology of choice.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The nutjobs dislike Free Will because it makes them accountable for their own actions and desires. The atheists dislike Free Will because it's often associated with God. While I have my beliefs about there being more to existence than what's in front of my nose, I disagree that having Free Will must be associated with the supernatural.

WHat a load of shit. It must be nice to be able to ignore actual points so you can continue spreading more disinformation.

For instance, on this thread alone I've made MULTIPLE references to the NOVA episode about human cognition ("Who's In Control") and the section in that about "free will" vs post hoc modeling by the brain to justify actions that were already taken (thus kind of calling into question how much free will actually exists).

Yet you can't figure out how to make it a personal attack on anyone so you just go with your usual talking point bullshit.

Your points about atheists read like some Bible Thumper who doesn't know the first fucking thing about atheism. I guess that's understandable...guessin' you are one of those God botherers.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I do think it's a mistake to conflate free will with Christianity.

ANY given religion like Christianity which leverages a "head diety" to give commands and create all things including morality but who reserves the right to punish those who fail to follow the commandments requires free will to be theologically reasonable.

The determinist sects within Christianity remain to me a complete mystery. If the Calvinists thought one's fate was already determined it would result in the faith having no direct leveragable control points which is one of the benefits of a religion (social cohesion). The fact that they were able to create a "faith" using this model remains a weird point to me.

I don't think Aristotle, Confucious, Sidartha Gautama would have bothered being teachers if they didn't believe in the role of directed will and choice.

Since I don't believe Aristotle, Confucious, or Sidartha are actually gods I personally couldn't care less what they thought about "free will". If they had access to an fMRI they might have had a rather different view apparently.

Free will is greatly tempting because it FEELS like we have it.

In the end I think of free will as a useful "model" that may or may not be correct. Since I can't conceive of a way to falsify it or prove it real yet I function daily with the illusion operating I'm OK.

I totally understand the claims of determinists that each cause has an effect, and in principle you could trace each action back in an infinite regress through an infinite series of causes. I am just not convinced that kind of reductionism is a valid way of looking at the human psychology of choice.

Cause and effect are perfectly rational given that literally every single thing we experience has an antecedent of some form. The problem with cause and effect in theological or cosmological conversations is that there has to be SOMETHING that was the first. Perhaps that is unknowable. It's a disaster for theology because it is little more than special pleading for an imaginary being or beings. But we know the physical world exists in some form or another. So all we know is that it started from something. Once started cause and effect are perfectly reasonable since I have never seen something happen without some cause.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I do think it's a mistake to conflate free will with Christianity.
I don't think Aristotle, Confucious, Sidartha Gautama would have bothered being teachers if they didn't believe in the role of directed will and choice.

I totally understand the claims of determinists that each cause has an effect, and in principle you could trace each action back in an infinite regress through an infinite series of causes. I am just not convinced that kind of reductionism is a valid way of looking at the human psychology of choice.

There's a link, but if looked at as a "Chicken and the Egg" question, I'd say the free will came well before Judaism, the original Abrahamic religion.

Even Eastern religions recognize our ability to choose. As you've quoted, they ask people to choose to realize they are part of a whole.

Atheists often claim "We're all atheists. I only believe in one less god than you." Likewise, determinists understand the physics of the Universe, but can't understand the process of what happens inside a human mind isn't comprehended. They want to say all is determined yet seem blind to the fact recognized by most human cultures as Free Will. "Cogito, ergo sum"

 

[Dutch Uncle]

WHat a load of shit. It must be nice to be able to ignore actual points so you can continue spreading more disinformation.

For instance, on this thread alone I've made MULTIPLE references to the NOVA episode about human cognition ("Who's In Control") and the section in that about "free will" vs post hoc modeling by the brain to justify actions that were already taken (thus kind of calling into question how much free will actually exists).

Yet you can't figure out how to make it a personal attack on anyone so you just go with your usual talking point bullshit.

Your points about atheists read like some Bible Thumper who doesn't know the first fucking thing about atheism. I guess that's understandable...guessin' you are one of those God botherers.

College degrees require a lot of writing. Masters require even more and Doctorates even more than that. Such people have excellent reading and writing skills. We all make typos and mistakes, but over time all poster's levels of writing skills are revealed.

Your writing skills coupled with your angry, juvenile posts are evidence you are not who you claim to be, Perry.

 

[IBDaMann]

Even Eastern religions recognize our ability to choose.

How patronizing. Even eastern religions!

The question isn't whether or not we appear to be able to choose. That seems pretty universal. Even Asians understand the concept of "choice" believe it or not.

The question is whether this appearance is merely an illusion. If examined scientifically, all "choices" boil down to neurochemical processes that are not controlled by our own volitions, but that do, in fact, control our volitions. From a science perspective, our individual wills are not under our control. Oh, there are even Asians who understand this as well.

So yes, we all perceive that we are in control of the many choices we seem to be making. That appearance of control appears to be just an illusion.

 

[Cypress]

There's a link, but if looked at as a "Chicken and the Egg" question, I'd say the free will came well before Judaism, the original Abrahamic religion.

Even Eastern religions recognize our ability to choose. As you've quoted, they ask people to choose to realize they are part of a whole.

Atheists often claim "We're all atheists. I only believe in one less god than you." Likewise, determinists understand the physics of the Universe, but can't understand the process of what happens inside a human mind isn't comprehended. They want to say all is determined yet seem blind to the fact recognized by most human cultures as Free Will. "Cogito, ergo sum"

Yes, I agree that reducing human psychology and conciousness to a simple matter of determinism based by analogy on the laws of Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein might be a bridge to far. That kind of strict reductionism might be the wrong track to take.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, I agree that reducing human psychology and conciousness to a simple matter of determinism based by analogy on the laws of Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein might be a bridge to far. That kind of strict reductionism might be the wrong track to take.

Agreed, yet it's the bridge some seem to take; the bridge to what I call the "meat robot" approach - a flesh machine responding solely to genetics and experience. No independent or original thoughts.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed, yet it's the bridge some seem to take; the bridge to what I call the "meat robot" approach - a flesh machine responding solely to genetics and experience. No independent or original thoughts.

I think it is reasonable to be skeptical anytime that claims are advanced conflating human psychology and conciousness to the reductionist determinism of Newtonian mechanics.

Free will is still an open question. Intuitively it seems self evident we have free choice in choosing marriage partners, whether or not to commit a crime, whether or not to lie, and what college major to choose.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think it is reasonable to be skeptical anytime that claims are advanced conflating human psychology and conciousness to the reductionist determinism of Newtonian mechanics.

Free will is still an open question. Intuitively it seems self evident we have free choice in choosing marriage partners, whether or not to commit a crime, whether or not to lie, and what college major to choose.

"Free Will" is about choice. There are some things which people, indeed, do not have a conscious choice. We choose our actions, not our desires. People vary in their ability to control their own emotions. Perry's attraction to homoerotic art is not "free will". Choosing to spend all of his money on homoerotic art is, at least for normal people, an example of Free Will because it's a conscious choice. The fact he's motivated emotionally is irrelevant in that choice. If he doesn't have the money, he can choose to break into an art store and steal it. If caught he'll be held accountable for his actions...his free will to choose to break the law.

 

[BidenPresident]

I think it is reasonable to be skeptical anytime that claims are advanced conflating human psychology and conciousness to the reductionist determinism of Newtonian mechanics.

Free will is still an open question. Intuitively it seems self evident we have free choice in choosing marriage partners, whether or not to commit a crime, whether or not to lie, and what college major to choose.

Your thread about scientism was on target. Many people think saying, 'science says..,' is the ultimate answer to any question.

 

[Cypress]

Your thread about scientism was on target. Many people think saying, 'science says..,' is the ultimate answer to any question.

I think that's right.

 

[Cypress]

"Free Will" is about choice. There are some things which people, indeed, do not have a conscious choice. We choose our actions, not our desires. People vary in their ability to control their own emotions. Perry's attraction to homoerotic art is not "free will". Choosing to spend all of his money on homoerotic art is, at least for normal people, an example of Free Will because it's a conscious choice. The fact he's motivated emotionally is irrelevant in that choice. If he doesn't have the money, he can choose to break into an art store and steal it. If caught he'll be held accountable for his actions...his free will to choose to break the law.

Attraction to homoerotica is probably just instinctual for some.

Tom of Finland is so obscure as a cartoonist, it almost seems like an act of free will to actively seek out his cartoons and familiarize oneself with his Village People cartoon-caricatures.