Free Will, Determinism and Soul

[Forestluv]

@electroBeam Of course there are practical considerations. Ultimately, the world in which I live has true / false and lacks true / false. It is a fluid reality. Imagine a block of plastic that is constantly going through a cycle of melting , forming, melting, reforming. Each form has unlimited perspectives in a static spatial dimension and the process of melting / forming itself has infinite positions in a temporal dimension. And each “position” in the temporal process would have infinite spatial perspectives. Even saying “relativism” is inadequate, because it suggests a stable “thing” to be relative to. Relative relative to what? At best, we could create a “point” as being relative to another “point”. Which of course can provide some grounding. 

This type of imagination isn’t efficient or practical in one context, so I often chose a “position” and get grounded on it. Like stepping on a stone to cross a stream, grounded positions have practical value in certain contexts.

The form you’ve created is true as it’s form. We could assume that form and view at from various angles as a static 2D or 3D form. Or we could melt it down and view the 4D process. Or we could view angles of various 3D appearances within the 4D process. Or we could partially melt it down and create a new form. Or we could fully melt it down and create news forms. Or create the same form and observe the process of its creation. Again, I understand such groundlessness is impractical when the desire is to discuss one particular construct. 

To me, it’s as if you built a house and are describing the house to me. Yet you seem to want me to somehow debate whether the details of your house are the details of your house. My mind doesn’t work that way. I don’t ‘disagree’ with what you created, no more than I would ‘disagree’ with a painting an artist created. 

[electroBeam]

22 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

@electroBeam Of course there are practical considerations. Ultimately, the world in which I live has true / false and lacks true / false. It is a fluid reality. Imagine a block of plastic that is constantly going through a cycle of melting , forming, melting, reforming. Each form has unlimited perspectives in a static spatial dimension and the process of melting / forming itself has infinite positions in a temporal dimension. And each “position” in the temporal process would have infinite spatial perspectives. Even saying “relativism” is inadequate, because it suggests a stable “thing” to be relative to. Relative relative to what? At best, we could create a “point” as being relative to another “point”. Which of course can provide some grounding. 

This type of imagination isn’t efficient or practical in one context, so I often chose a “position” and get grounded on it. Like stepping on a stone to cross a stream, grounded positions have practical value in certain contexts.

The form you’ve created is true as it’s form. We could assume that form and view at from various angles as a static 2D or 3D form. Or we could melt it down and view the 4D process. Or we could view angles of various 3D appearances within the 4D process. Or we could partially melt it down and create a new form. Or we could fully melt it down and create news forms. Or create the same form and observe the process of its creation. Again, I understand such groundlessness is impractical when the desire is to discuss one particular construct. 

To me, it’s as if you built a house and are describing the house to me. Yet you seem to want me to somehow debate whether the details of your house are the details of your house. My mind doesn’t work that way. I don’t ‘disagree’ with what you created, no more than I would ‘disagree’ with a painting an artist created. 

Awesome thanks!

I guess i dont see value in that mindset because i still prefer or even strongly value relatively and absolutely true things over false ones(like lying vs telling the truth) but i guess thats because i haven't done a month of 5 meo lol.

[Forestluv]

23 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

I guess i dont see value in that

Value is context-dependent. 

In one context, it’s beneficial to disregard everything I’ve proposed as trash. In another context it is a key to enter a new area.

Trying to explain the molecular mechanisms of epigenetics during sex is a mismatch of contexts. 

[Moksha]

21 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

I guess i dont see value in that mindset because i still prefer or even strongly value relatively and absolutely true things over false ones(like lying vs telling the truth) but i guess thats because i haven't done a month of 5 meo lol.

In the dream world, relative truth is no more true than relative falsehood. Both dualities are illusions.

Ultimately, it all is, without anything to be preferred over another thing.

[electroBeam]

13 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Value is context-dependent. 

In one context, it’s beneficial to disregard everything I’ve proposed as trash. In another context it is a key to enter a new area. Trying to explain the molecular mechanisms of epigenetics during sex is a mismatch of contexts. 

Yep agree there.

What's got me stuck is the impression that me saying Qannon is incorrect because of X Y Z (all of which are well thought out and relarively true) to a Qannon follower is me building my house and getting him to debate my details. It doesnt feel like I'm building my house there, because my relative truths should be shared between me and him. The idea that its not goes against everything i stand for LOL. 

Likewise debating that an ego doesnt exist because of X Y Z (which are all knowing/verified/absolutely true knowings or becoming conscious of or accesses of truth) is me building my house and debating my personal details that has no universal appreciation for others is mind boggling to me. Even if others are imaginary.

Or to say that Qannon is bullshit while people did land on the moon is saying one painting is better then the other, or saying that when we die we go to heaven vs we cant die because theres no ego is saying 1 painting is truer then the other is super mind boggling.

Because theres obviously stuff that feels better and feels worse. And theres things that are more productive then other stuff, and there is a better way to live while there is a worse way to live. There is doing and saying wise stuff vs saying dumb stuff. And i dont have any evidence other than intuition. But i thought everyone's intuition is the same. If it feels good to me, it should feel good to you. That not even being true is incomprehensible to me, which is why i mentioned 5 meo.

But at the same time i think theres something to it so I'd say "value" is leaning more on the beneficial side atm.

Edited November 28, 2020 by electroBeam

[electroBeam]

4 minutes ago, Moksha said:

In the dream world, relative truth is no more true than relative falsehood. Both dualities are illusions.

Ultimately, it all is, without anything to be preferred over another thing.

Yeah but unless im mistaken Forestluv is talking about some grandfather version of relativity that goes to the absolute level or is so relative you cant call it relative.

So saying that the universe is infinite love is relative in a sense. Not saying he's implying that, im just trying to illustrate the magnitude.

[Moksha]

27 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

Yeah but unless im mistaken Forestluv is talking about some grandfather version of relativity that goes to the absolute level or is so relative you cant call it relative.

So saying that the universe is infinite love is relative in a sense. Not saying he's implying that, im just trying to illustrate the magnitude.

Maybe @Forestluv can clarify his view on that. Consciousness is infinite love, in the absolute sense. It is also infinite love, in the relative sense, but in different states of awareness.

[electroBeam]

1 minute ago, Moksha said:

Maybe @Forestluv can clarify his view on that. Consciousness is infinite love, in the absolute sense. It is also infinite love, in the relative sense, but in different states of awareness.

I'm personally fine to go without the clarification, although you're free to ask if you feel drawn to. I sort of got a gist that truth seeking/science is an art, not a discovering truth exercise, whether forestluv meant that or not.

[Forestluv]

@electroBeam I would remove the personal component, it adds an unnecessary dynamic in this case. 

Imagine that we visit a house together. It's not a house "you" created or a house "I" created. It's just a house that's there. We enter the house and a tour guide describes different aspects of the house - the type of wood, the paint colors, they style of windows, etc. We could say "based on x, y and z", the tour guide's description is accurate. We could also say this is all still one perception. A dog would view the house differently. Yet we still could say "based on x, y and z parameters this is how it is". I'm totally cool with that. 

What I'm pointing at is zooming out and looking at the house and all the inner details as a house. From within the house, everything is within that house. It will appear as the universe and is the universe. From within that house, reality is the contents of the house. 

There are also other houses and there are not other houses. If there is one house, that is the universal house. If there are additional houses, then it is a house within a more expansive House that contains smaller houses. This gets into a dilemma of infinity. Individual minds often want their house to be The House. Here the house is The House and is universal infinity. Those that speak of stuff outside the house would be saying there is something beyond infinity. This is correct in this context. Yet minds that are contracted within a house erroneously assume it is the House. The trick is that they are correct in one context, yet incorrect in another context. At the human level it is much easier to see the context in which one's mind is correct than the context in which one's mind is incorrect. In particular, because the mind sets up a true / false decision and puts itself in a position of having to fully reject a view, although that view is correct in one context. The house is the House AND it is just one of many houses within a more expansive House. Both are true (and false). 

Am am pointing to the house is not the House. Yet I'm not rejecting the house is the House. If someone keeps defending a view that the house is the House, they would be contracted within the truth of that statement. Which is fine - yet it prevents the mind from seeing that the house is also not the House. 

[electroBeam]

7 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

@electroBeam I would remove the personal component, it adds an unnecessary dynamic in this case. 

Imagine that we visit a house together. It's not a house "you" created or a house "I" created. It's just a house that's there. We enter the house and a tour guide describes different aspects of the house - the type of wood, the paint colors, they style of windows, etc. We could say "based on x, y and z", the tour guide's description is accurate. We could also say this is all still one perception. A dog would view the house differently. Yet we still could say "based on x, y and z parameters this is how it is". I'm totally cool with that. 

What I'm pointing at is zooming out and looking at the house and all the inner details as a house. From within the house, everything is within that house. It will appear as the universe and is the universe. From within that house, reality is the contents of the house. 

There are also other houses and there are not other houses. If there is one house, that is the universal house. If there are additional houses, then it is a house within a more expansive House that contains smaller houses. This gets into a dilemma of infinity. Individual minds often want their house to be The House. Here the house is The House and is universal infinity. Those that speak of stuff outside the house would be saying there is something beyond infinity. This is correct in this context. Yet minds that are contracted within a house erroneously assume it is the House. The trick is that they are correct in one context, yet incorrect in another context. At the human level it is much easier to see the context in which one's mind is correct than the context in which one's mind is incorrect. In particular, because the mind sets up a true / false decision and puts itself in a position of having to fully reject a view, although that view is correct in one context. The house is the House AND it is just one of many houses within a more expansive House. Both are true (and false). 

Am am pointing to the house is not the House. Yet I'm not rejecting the house is the House. If someone keeps defending a view that the house is the House, they would be contracted within the truth of that statement. Which is fine - yet it prevents the mind from seeing that the house is also not the House. 

Awesome thanks! Definitely got some insights there on how i could approach things differently both relatively and absolutely.

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Moksha said:

Maybe @Forestluv can clarify his view on that. Consciousness is infinite love, in the absolute sense. It is also infinite love, in the relative sense, but in different states of awareness.

I'm fine with the expression that Consciousness is infinite love and I'm fine the expression that Consciousness is not infinite love, depending on context.

Imagine looking at a map of Paris and someone calling Paris Europe. That I have a problem with because it's misleading and it prevents others from learning about Europe. And the underlying intention is a factor too. If someone claims Paris is Europe because they've only seen a map of Paris, then they are unaware of Europe. In that case, I think it's best to reach out - yet if the person is too closed-minded they won't expand. And if they are too argumentative, they can be disruptive to other explorers. . . There is also the case in which someone has seen a map of Europe yet is trying to convince people that the map of Paris is Europe. That is a different context that I would be considered devilry.

There is also the context of someone seeing both maps of Europe and Paris and asking "What is the best way to describe Europe?". 

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

Awesome thanks! Definitely got some insights there on how i could approach things differently both relatively and absolutely.

Keep in mind I'm also wrong. 

[Moksha]

@Forestluv The House underlies and is every house that can be created, infinitely.

[Moksha]

3 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

I'm fine with the expression that Consciousness is infinite love and I'm fine the expression that Consciousness is not infinite love, depending on context.

Ultimate reality, though, is not contextual. Consciousness underlies the dream, and infuses the infinity of dream forms with its essence, but it is more than just the contextual dream maps. It is the terrain itself.

[electroBeam]

3 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Keep in mind I'm also wrong. 

Thats right I am

Relatively speaking what i just got from your writing is different to what you meant. Just have to keep that in mind lol. Im not interpreting you correctly.

And yeah you might actually be wrong as a person on an even more relative level lol.

[Hotaka]

I decide

[Origins]

For lack of a better way of presently describing it, how alive is consciousness for this being? That's how I determine free will as it points to many indicators that influence someones degree of free will in a given situation and moment.

[Someone here]

5 hours ago, snowyowl said:

I get that "I don't exist" in the sense of having a little homunculus inside my mind who is the centre and controller, like the driver of a car. However, what's wrong with drawing an (imaginary) line round the edge of my skin, and calling what's inside "me", as a whole entity? I can move around, think and act independently of other "mes" after all.

Corollary. What do you think about the executive function?  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions  This could be a scientific theory for our sense of self, and it's possibly located in the frontal cortex, which is approximately where I feel like "I am". Maybe something in the brain needs to organise the other functions to keep the whole system working efficiently, like the CPU in a computer. 

There isn't any you. YOU as the absolute is everything. And anything and no thing. 

Any line you draw is imaginary and flimsy.. Since where exactly does anything starts and ends? And who is drawing the line if the line is you?. Each moment there is a new me because there is a new "I" thought. And when the "I" thought doesn't arise there is literally no "I" in that condition. You are trying to ground reality. Reality is a groundless insanity. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Someone here

[Javfly33]

5 hours ago, snowyowl said:

I get that "I don't exist" in the sense of having a little homunculus inside my mind who is the centre and controller, like the driver of a car. However, what's wrong with drawing an (imaginary) line round the edge of my skin, and calling what's inside "me", as a whole entity? I can move around, think and act independently of other "mes" after all.

Corollary. What do you think about the executive function?  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions  This could be a scientific theory for our sense of self, and it's possibly located in the frontal cortex, which is approximately where I feel like "I am". Maybe something in the brain needs to organise the other functions to keep the whole system working efficiently, like the CPU in a computer. 

There´s no problem with that.

The problem is when you think that you are that "me"-

[snowyowl]

I think we're just disagreeing over different definitions of ego. 

@electroBeam "Not only does an ego not exist, but you've never known what an ego truly is." That seems to say you think ego is an undefined word. But I do know what my ego is (on my terms) and felt it in my consciousness. My ego is my mind creating division and attachment. For example, I own a car, it is inside the circle of "me" compared to everyone else's cars, I am attached to it, so I'll feel upset if it's stolen, but less bothered if a stranger's car is stolen.

@Moksha "The ego never exists. It is just a name we give for the state of unconsciousness, and the gravitational pull of our conditioning to staying in that state."  You say the ego doesn't exist, then give a perfectly good definition of just what it is. 

So, I'll say an ego is a construct of feeling and thought, perhaps not very enlightened thought, but to say it doesn't exist is like saying a house doesn't exist, it's just a collection of bricks. Like the Buddhist analogy of a chariot not existing apart from its component parts. Hopefully we can agree that egos don't exist separately, don't have inherent existence. I'm just using ego as a label for a certain pattern within my mind. 

 

Edited November 29, 2020 by snowyowl