Compatibilism

I did not say it was a myth. I said the idea of THE 1st cause is a myth. I am saying that the whole notion of one beginning and one end, the Abrahamic notion of a linear time to describe the cosmos, is a myth. And that as long as we continue to think along those lines, this question of free will or non-free will is never going to advance very far. Either we are all slaves to the 1st cause (hence, hard determinism or fatalism) or somehow we have choice because of a loophole called “God”. In either case, with God or without God, reason itself cannot see anything but determinism/fatalism at work here. If there is in fact a 1st cause, then it makes no sense to talk about any kind of true freedom unless we are that 1st cause. At best we can merely become aware of the total process of causation and know what is going to happen without being able to change it. I don’t seen any room for free will or compatibilism under the common, linear notion of time that has haunted western civilization for millennia, unless someone brings God or some other supernatural force into existence to somehow justify the impossible.

However, if we look at the nature of time a bit differently. As something that grows out of the present moment, and we recognize a reality called “timelessness” (aka, the present moment). Then one can be free in that moment for then one IS the prime mover (at least for that moment). And so I am saying that the deeper we move into emptiness, the deeper we move into the causal dimension. And on the other end of the spectrum, the deeper we are attached to form, the farther we move from the causal dimension. But I maintain that a prime mover is not something that happened somewhere in the past, but rather a timeless dimension here in the present… always in the preset.

Could it be that my rejection of the Judea/Christian/Islamic/Scientism notion of time and causation is a direct result of living my life as a hard determinist for many years eventually leading me to nearly commit suicide because of the impossible burden such a metaphysical weight carried? Sure. Maybe I am being “anti-intellectual”, although I swear that I had to be first very “intellectual” in order to be so convinced that ANY form of free will was an absolute illusion. And so, like the Underground Man, I reject that I am nothing but a piano key being played by a pianoist, and if I have to completely reject that which is considered canonical in order that I may be free at all, so be it.

:crying-blue: :eusa-naughty: :angelic-halofell:

From what I get I think I see things quite differently than you, ATW but I’d like to understand it better.
So, if you are interested, I’d like to know how you see and how you have seen the world prior to your new approach when it comes to the future.
When you were that kind of hard determinist, did you think that the future is perfectly predictable and that things were going the way they were going and could not be altered, making everything into a mechanism doing its thing? And in the now, you have a different outlook on it?

Great question and I’m glad you asked. Let me think about that one a good while and sometime soon (hopefully today) I’ll get back to you. It will take me a lot of reflecting on my various different phases of life before I will be able to articulate myself optimally.

Take your time… I find it to be a very essential part of a man’s outlook.

I think your analogy of the ball is slightly off.
I think free will is more analogous to the person kicking the ball. He has the freedom to kick the ball in any number of directions, and with different strengths, etc. Once the ball is kicked, determinism kicks in, and there is only one direction the ball can go. This determinism, will be affected by any number of things that may affect where the ball actually ends up going. For instance, a strong gust of wind may push the ball’s direction in a different way. Or it may hit a bird and deflect away. Or someone else may see the ball in the air and choose to catch it before it lands in the pool. Each of these interacting factors were also set in motion by choices (or moments of change) and once set in motion became deterministic–but effectible by an infinite array of other interacting factors.

This same process of interactions can also be internalized in our decision making process. The brain uses a vast array of functional nodes (areas of the brain responsible for vary specific functions) to make every decision… and to process every thought… and experience every sense, etc. Each of these undergoes the same mingling of deterministic and free will factors which influence each other in a chaotic and never ending fashion. Thus, it is virtually impossible to separate (in any meaningful way) what is free-will from what is pre-determined.

The question I find even more interesting is this: Does it matter whether an act is predetermined or free will? Should we respond to an act any differently just because we perceive it to be caused by one versus the other.

The way how we think about things does affect our actions/reactions.

So I think your analogy doesn’t show compatibility with determinism necessarily, while mine does.

Free will under authority is merely deflection in that it promotes the perception that individuals have a choice in everything even when there is none and when individuals are devalued going against status quo prescribed existential articles of choice under authority authoritarians are very apt coming in and saying that you chose the wrong choices under dictation. [Even when wrong choices or actions don’t really exist and where free will in a universe of determinism is a seductive illusion.]

Authority comes in deflects everything on the individual that has very little or no choices at all by prescribing all responsibility individually thus absolving any responsibility of itself. Authority can’t be responsible for anything, only the individual can be. Shift of blame and scapegoating are popular forms of this by authority on individuals.

It’s all a rather fraudulent parlor trick and game revolving around mental acrobatics concerning authority that’s whole purpose is centered upon control validating prevailing dominance.

Authority of any kind can’t exist without the fictitious illusions and constructs of freewill or morality. That’s why it employs both in concentrated forms of social propaganda in society. It’s ironic individuals try to challenge authority with morality and freewill because they are the same very fictitious articles authorities use to enslave or ensnare everybody with.

Challenging authority with morality and freewill guarantees that the challenger always loses since both are authored or tailored by authority to begin with. Authority has a monopoly on both morality and freewill.

Of course when a majority of human beings are ignorant or idiotic simpletons within every historical epoch we can expect no less here.

Openly displayed authority or power isn’t a moral one which is why historically openly displayed power was abandoned.

It’s far easier to control a population when an authority presents itself as being morally benevolent likewise the political fraudulent appearance of limited freedom within a controlled sphere of social influence can’t exist without the concept of freewill.

Openly displayed power also leaves people in power vulnerable to be challenged by anybody and those in power despise being challenged directly. People of power hate competition. Thus freewill and morality was invented for those in power so that their power can’t be challenged directly. It is hard to challenge directly an ideal or mentally moral abstraction of power and also more easier for those in power to monopolize it when it exists indirectly in abstract thought form. People from their childhood are already indocrinated, conditioned, and engineered to believe in this kind of ideologically moral driven authority or power in majority making it challenged even more less. To challenge an abstract ideologically driven form of power one has to challenge it equally ideologically themselves in an abstract thought form however in the creation of technological supremacism they can just censor and tune you out which is why future challenges against all authority will be extremely violent confrontational ones. Violence is the only communication the state or authority understands and reacts to. Nothing new under the sun…

I was raised as an evangelical (literalist) Christian. God was the 1st cause, and we were endowed with free will through the grace of God. Sometime when I was young I began to reflect on what that entails, and asked the questions (mostly to myself) that most young people ask in such a predicament. “If God is the cause of everything and knows everything, than how can I have free will? Either I am written into the book of life or I am not, how could I have any choice in the matter?” I didn’t understand it, but I didn’t obsess over it either. After all, through God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, and that took care of that.

At the age of 16 when I finally and officially divorced myself from the notion of God, I then began to inquire about all of those philosophical questions that I had always wanted to ask, but which I was afraid to ask in fear of either divine punishment or punishment from my parents.

I soon wound up replacing God with the Big Bang and within a few years time a number of things started to fall into place. I reasoned that no matter what are intentions were, there was always a selfish drive behind them. If I did something good for someone it was because that act made me fell good. This became axiomatic to my mind and thus I became an Egoist. I also reasoned that if the Big Bang was the 1st cause, and if there was absolutely no intelligence behind or underlying this cause, then everything that happened as a result of the Big Bang was at bottom utterly unintelligent, and completely and utterly caused by it. The fact that “consciousness” had the potential to imagine free will never for a moment felt like a refutation. It simply meant that one “could” (was determined) to hallucinate the notion of free will. After all, correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, the sensation of “free will” that correlates with beings who can reflect on this notion did not imply causation, it merely implied correlation.

Of course, from my hard deterministic stance I also became a moral relativist and pretty much a relativist in every conceivable way. The only self evidence truth was the truth of the 1st cause as the determining factor in all things to come, for all time, past, present, and future. In other words, we, at bottom, are nothing more than unintelligent mechanisms of causation playing themselves out. That’s it. That’s all there is to life. Nothing more. Free will or free anything is utterly impossible.

The events that follow from this I wrote down in a journal a few months back.

"After years of being drunken, angry, delusional, depressed and living out my own inner jihad, I finally came to a point where I decided that I had just about had enough. I decided I was going to seriously consider hanging myself. I found a hook on my ceiling, got some guitar chords and made a noose out of them, got a drum snare to stand on (the fact that the things I was going to kill myself with being music related was something very interesting to me, as music was my other great passion alongside philosophy), stood on the snare, and put the noose around my neck.

I then thought about whether I was going to jump or not. But the entire time I couldn’t help but feel that I had no choice in the matter. It felt like I did, sort of… kind of… but at the same time, I knew that free will was impossible. Furthermore, since I had serious notions that the eternal return was basically scientific, seeing as nothing else made much sense to me, I figured that if I decided/it decided for me to jump, then I would seal my eternal fate/it would seal my and my eternal fate, and I would live this tortured life forever more. The confusion here is comic.

Eventually I picked up my cell phone (or did the bing bang do it? Again, I didn’t know), called my mom who was sleeping at the time, and told her to come into the basement. She saw me standing there on the drum and naturally, she was in shock. She talked me out of it. At the exact moment that this was happening, my childhood friend since kindergarten, who I hand’t talked to in months, called me. It was all so, so, so strange. He came over and along with my mom they drove me to the hospital.

That was about 10 years ago or so. Having survived that, the first leaks in my absolute assuredness that free will was impossible started to enter into me. I still could not see how it was possible for free will to exist, at least not rationally. But it felt like I was the one who made the choice not to end it. I wrestled with this question for years after, and eventually gave up on the question altogether, seeing it as useless. I gave up many other positions too, such as egoism, the eternal return, and the idea of superior and inferior individuals.

Philosophy, to me, at this point in my life, has served as something of a holy illusion. In that, I had to get lost in theory’s, positions, in other words, in THOUGHT, before I could begin to understand the whole futility of “belief”, “ideology”, ”knowing" something with mere words, or complex combinations of words called “theory’s” and “ideologies”. Through peak experiences that came naturally to me, along with psychedelic substances, and experiences of synchronicity, it became obvious to me that life is vibration, energy, tao, call it what you will. That there is neither free will nor “non free will”, that there is neither “egoism” or “altruism”. There is energy, and there are simply manifold ways of experiencing this energy, reflecting on it, and communicating it. No “truth” worth a damn can be found in words. It is the experience itself that is of value, words are there merely to try and communicate the experience. It is in silence, in stillness, in the absence of “thought” that what is is seen as it is, felt as it is, and understood as it is."

Only in silence, in stillness, in absence of conditioning. Only in that state in which all fear is vanquished, all anger is vanquished, in which one comes to the ground of ones own being. Only there does one feel oneself as absolutely free. As that which is the causal in itself. In the East this state is called “Nirvana” or “Satori”. But I am not speaking of anything mystical here. The universe is clearly one thing (or process, or thing-process). It is not absolutely dual. If one comes to the ground of ones own being, then one comes to the ground of being, period. One comes to a state in which time is no more. And in that state, one is free of causality, karma, the whole mechanism of time. And in that state one then becomes a vehicle for which the causal, for which time, for which form, can flow out of oneself freely. I am rarely in such a state, have only been in such a state for brief moments in my life. But there is no doubt, when that state is experienced, one is totally free. One becomes “the big bang” or “god” or “the causal”. But it’s not something that happened a long time ago. I deny any 1st cause. I recognize only a causal place of being, that one can either get more or less in contact with, which I recognize as the purest form of the self.

Explain that line of thinking more in depth please…

Agreed.

Because even limited choices are determined.

Between three options it appears you have a choice but ultimately all options are determined for you within the environment you live in. Your choices are determined and that you have to act upon one of the three options is equally determined. Ultimately what option is acted upon is up to individual preference and rationalization of decision but nonetheless this all exists within a predetermined loophole of established parameters.

Justice when reduced is nothing more than retribution, revenge politics, psychology, and instinctual behaviors portraying themselves as something other than what they actually are.

Punishment implies a moral imperative where none exists.

No, punishment is revenge politics and retribution masquerading itself as something else.

Also, all individuals are not determined the same which is why when you introduce sporadic chaos into scenarios in terms of environment people although completely determined act in very different ways. This is where chaos theory comes in handy. Essentially civilization is organized chaos where many different egos chaotically compete against each other with their own wants, desires, dreams, or aspirations.

You’re poor? Invest in stocks! What, you don’t have any money?

Yet genetics are a determining factor of intelligence. Nobody freely chooses any of that.

Religious determinism assumes that there is a god which in reality can be better explained with nature, biology, and evolution.

Of course. Our body’s our a determining factor of what we choose as well. So is how our mind works. But nonetheless, we make choices that are determined by us…

The conception of self is nothing more than neurological phenomena.