|
Post by paul on Nov 18, 2011 8:01:08 GMT 9.5
So:
- our thoughts are our own - unbidden thoughts come from the subconscious - the subconscious "I" is some sort of program
So when was the subconscious "I" programmed?
By whom?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 21, 2011 10:39:36 GMT 9.5
Perhaps those are hard questions.
Here is an easier question: Where in the traditional writings is the earliest explicit statement that humans have free will?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 22, 2011 14:01:31 GMT 9.5
So if the traditional writings do not tell us about free will, how did the concept come into the culture?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 23, 2011 8:03:41 GMT 9.5
It is remarkable how such a fundamental concept as Free Will has no obvious heritage.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 23, 2011 8:49:58 GMT 9.5
Maybe we are hard wired to believe that be it true or not ?
( ;D that does not make sense, thinking too fast and typing too slow, or the other way around.)
Maybe we are hard wired to believe that it is true.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 23, 2011 10:06:05 GMT 9.5
If we are hard wired to believe in free will, why does it not appear in ancient writings?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 24, 2011 12:14:10 GMT 9.5
They took it as obvious?
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 24, 2011 12:18:29 GMT 9.5
The freedom of the will is real, although it is also relative and conditioned. Man is surrounded by necessity,
sacred-texts.com/nth/lam/lam08.htm
We may have to explore this subject a little more ..
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 24, 2011 12:31:00 GMT 9.5
If we are hard wired to believe in free will, why does it not appear in ancient writings? How about the Avesta? The religion (Zorastrianism, probably founded some time before the 6th century BCE in Greater Iran) states that active participation in life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will...
Individual judgment at death is by the Bridge of Judgment, which each human must cross, facing a spiritual judgment. Humans' actions under their free will determine the outcome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
The Avesta is the religious book of Zoroastrians that contains a collection of sacred texts. The history of the Avesta is found in many Pahlavi texts. The twenty-one nasks were created by Ahura Mazda and brought by Zoroaster to Vishtaspa. Here, two copies were created, one which was put in the house of archives, and the other put in the Imperial treasury. During Alexander's conquest of Persia, the Avesta was burned, and the scientific sections that the Greeks could use were dispersed among themselves. Under the reign of King Valax of the Arsacis Dynasty, an attempt was made to restore the Avesta. During the Sassanid Empire, Ardeshir ordered Tansar, his high priest, to finish the work that King Valax had started. Shapur I sent priests to locate the scientific text portions of the Avesta that were in the possession of the Greeks.
6th century, BCE is pretty old.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 24, 2011 13:16:11 GMT 9.5
So was Zoroaster the first reference to free will?
Jehovah does not seem to be too strong on free will, being inclined to wipe out large numbers of Israelites that might have been disobedient.
Osiris and Isis, do not, as far as I recall, teach free will.
So does the western acceptance of free will, indicate that Zoroastrianism (and perhaps gnosticism generally) has infiltrated the western culture despite the best efforts of mainstream religions?
I note that gnosticism emphasises the need to struggle against the lesser god that rules the Earth. Older religions tended to emphasise the need to submit to the local god.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 24, 2011 14:11:55 GMT 9.5
Jehovah does not seem to be too strong on free will, being inclined to wipe out large numbers of Israelites that might have been disobedient. Invading forces tend to do that sort of thing. The Light of Knowledge rises in the East ?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 24, 2011 14:51:33 GMT 9.5
The intent of gnosticism seems to be that humans are faced with the choice of following the supreme being or following the lesser/false god who has control of the Earth.
Freemasons are very clear about following the supreme being - although rituals include references to what might be lesser beings.
|
|
|
Post by azaziel on Dec 7, 2011 19:09:28 GMT 9.5
I note that gnosticism emphasises the need to struggle against the lesser god that rules the Earth. Older religions tended to emphasise the need to submit to the local god.
I would like some substance to your claim that older religions tended to emphasise the need to submit to the local god.
I disagree with you on this
|
|
|
Post by azaziel on Dec 7, 2011 19:12:41 GMT 9.5
Is subconscious a thing, an intelligence, is it all those (lower?) processes/intelligences of which we are not conscious. If the last, what do we know about those processes/intelligences? You know as well as I, that we do not know all about our complex brain, so why ask questions with no answers, and /or skew them to your own thought process, you either believe in free will or not
|
|
|
Post by azaziel on Dec 7, 2011 19:14:24 GMT 9.5
Perhaps those are hard questions. Here is an easier question: Where in the traditional writings is the earliest explicit statement that humans have free will? Perhaps a better question, where in those early writings does it say we don't have free will?
|
|
|
Post by azaziel on Dec 7, 2011 19:16:33 GMT 9.5
It is remarkable how such a fundamental concept as Free Will has no obvious heritage.
Obvious maybe to you, but just because it is not written does not make it with no heritage,
remember, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Dec 8, 2011 8:39:11 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 10, 2011 17:23:33 GMT 9.5
Most humans want (weakly will) many things and non-things that they do not get. Even those who practice mental aspects of will do not get too much.
Does this failure reflect on the nature of free will?
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Dec 10, 2011 22:55:02 GMT 9.5
I am between a rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand, life experience has taught me that if I set my mind to something I can achieve things that are unexpected (eg getting into university, into the professions, an obese bloke doing triathlons, and many other examples). However these things can take many years to achieve. And on the other hand, the more that I understand about life, the more that I see how life has nudged and helped me get to where I am (I do realise that at first glance this is self intuitive as obviously we get to where we are because of the specific life events we have had), which begs the question how much free will has there been. What I am looking for is a "unified theory" a bit like in science. ;D My interim conclusion is that we have a life path set out for us to learn specific lessons, and along the way we have a degree of influence is how fast or slowly we progress along it. This being independent of the life situation we are in or the wobblies that life can throw at us which simply give us tools and experiences, some of which we like and some of which we dont. But you also need to factor in how every decision we make can have a butterfly effect and result in things that are not immediately obvious to us, which can feed into lifes external wobblies. Perhaps I need a unified unified theory
|
|
|
Post by paul on Dec 11, 2011 6:11:09 GMT 9.5
Perhaps the possible paths of life narrow as we get older and progressively eliminate options.
What if each of us exists as multiple parallel lives that interact (like fingers of a hand)? If so, does free will only operate outside of time and space?
|
|