Let's not, and you can say we did.. That'd be my choice. Then we all get what we want.
Freedom of choice.

Excellent point, Abol!
BTW, Your name caught my attention. In 1993 I belonged to a federal party, here is Canada, called The ABOLITIONIST Party of Canada, and I ran for election to the Parialment of Canada.

Had the Abolitionists been elected we would have instructed our central bank, the Bank of Canada, to issue all money at cost with zero interest--interest-free.
This would mean that, providing one had a sound business idea and/or enough colatteral, one could borrow money from any bank for a straight fee, which would be used to cover the cost of running the cost of the local banks and the federal banking system. For example, this would mean that one could borrow $100,000.00 for less than 2% ($2,000.00) as a one-time fee.

How many think that this a good and possible idea? Or the opposite? If there are posters trained in economics, we could discuss it in one of the appropriate threads. I only raised it here because of the reminder I got from seeing you moniker, Abol. Where did you get it?

Lindsay.. something you should know about the bank of canada, its not owned by the canadian government. The BoC is free to do whatever the hell it wants without any consequences, this was set up a very long time ago, bankers are in charge of the BoC, not the government and thats why were still in debt. Finally that wouldnt end your money problems, what you really should have done was move all money creating powers from private banks to the government (the canadian government only makes 5% of all canadian money) then canada would be completly debt free.

If their was no variables with which to be bound by would we even exist? could reality exist if their was nothing to contrast itself? even black has white and even zeros have ones. So is to be free is to not exist??

Every human being has limitations. If being free means being free of all limits then only a mythical god is free, and that's absurd. The real philosophical question is not whether we are omnipotent (which we obviously aren't), but whether we can choose other than we do.

Today I chose to have a piece of cake with my lunch. I assert I could have chosen otherwise.

In another post I referred to part of the concluding statements from an article at http://www.biopsychiatry.com/:

"Actually, suffering exists only because it was good for our genes. Conditionally-activated negative emotions were fitness-enhancing in the ancestral environment. In the current era, apologists for mental pain are serving as the innocent mouthpieces of the nasty bits of code which spawned them. If pressed, primordial DNA's unwitting spokesmen would presumably disavow any such connection. Yet if one were purposely building an intelligent robotic survival-machine, then endowing it with the illusion of free-will would prove a highly fitness-enhancing adaptation. It's a trick which our genes stumbled upon; and then blindly exploited."

The "free-will" related comments come at the end of a comprehensive and educated review of neuroleptics and other neuropharmaceuticals in the context of enhanced "happiness" associated with altering the cage of gene-controlled neurotransmitters and receptors, amongst other things. I, personally, believe that that this will be the route to enhanced consciousness with hardly a glimmer from religious enlightenment meditation and the like. But ... enhanced consciousness means many things to many people and maybe that is to continue in different boards.

physics and philosophy: the observer-created reality.

An atom does not travel through space along a single path with 100 per cent certainty as a planet does. Rather, it has a large number of possible paths open to it, each with a particular probability. When the atom is "observed", one and only one of the possibilities is actualised. Thus, reality is created by observation. Here the authors make their most controversial assertion: that the observer must be conscious. Consciousness, they believe, is intimately tied up with quantum processes.

Many physicists think that the phenomenon of "decoherence" does away with the need for a conscious observer. Decoherence explains why an atom on its own can do many things at once, while entities composed of many atoms, such as humans, cannot. This is because in a large collection of atoms it is impossible for the quantum waves associated with each to overlap sufficiently (a state known as "coherence") to allow them to interfere - the key behind all quantum weirdness. Some believe a conscious observer is not necessary for decoherence to take place. However, Rosenblum and Kuttner point out that while decoherence explains why you and I are never in two places at once, it does not explain why a single atom is in one place rather than another. For an atom to become fixed, a conscious observer is essential, they argue.

Rosenblum and Kuttner thus tie together two great mysteries: consciousness, and the "quantum enigma" of how reality coalesces out of the fog of quantum possibilities. They never spell out what they think the connection is, they only emphasise that it is an enigma at the heart of quantum theory that physicists must sooner or later confront head-on. They also remind us that we have not got to the bottom of quantum theory by a long chalk. We still need a new way of seeing and, as quantum philosopher John Bell said, "The new way of seeing will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us."

Marcus Chown is the author of The Quantum Zoo (Joseph Henry Press, 2006)
From issue 2565 of New Scientist magazine, 19 August 2006, page 47

“Fascination and elusiveness is the whole point of consciousness”

There are no conscious observers on Mars, yet the rocks weather in the wind just the same. The Copenhagen interpretation is a bunch of hooey.

A photon is a discrete quantity of energy. It can travel through two slits and interfere with itself. That's not magical.

What does quantum mechanics have to do with free will?

oh rick....how you make me giggle (hooey - now there's a blast from the past)....that's a good observation....way to collapse its wavefunction!

Also, great question about the relationship between QM and free will. I believe there are many discoveries imedded within the reasearch on QM that do point towards freewilly.

Rocks don't weather on Mars until a sentient being with a consciousness observes that physical event.

I just wanted to say that I very much enjoyed this post and that I think it most definitely moved in a good direction. A lot of the things I was planning to post have been said but I wanted to add a few things, hoping to not be too redundant.

I think that most of the problem of free will disappears once one acquires an expanded "I" sense and a different concept of causality. If you think of yourself as EVERYTHING and not just what is contained in your body, then the concept of blame and praise becomes irrelevant. You will only be blaming or praising yourself, so the techniques of blame and praise are merely cultural tools to maintain society. They have no real moral implications because they are things done to the self by the self.

For the second concept I like to think about it like I was first explained it. Imagine you look through a crack in a fence and see the head of a cat for the first time. You watch and the head "becomes" a tail. As you continue to stare through the crack, you continue to see the head of the cat successively followed by the tail. This leads you to believe that the head "causes" the tail. You have no knowledge of the cat as a whole being, so this is a logical conclusion. Now, if you were suddenly able to tear down the fence and see the cat in its entirely you would understand that the cat simply exists without the head causing the tail or vice versa. This is like time. There is no one event that precedes and "causes" another event, that is just an illusion created by our narrow view of reality (because we our seeing through a time and space defined self). If we were able to expand beyond this and truly BE in cosmic consciousness or God sense or whatever term you would like to use and see past the illusions or time and space and self, we would see that it is all, indeed happening now in the ever-present moment with no causes or effects.

I hope I put that in a way that is comprehensible. Let me know what you think!

A lot of what you have just stated resonates out of 'Flatland'.....and I too, like the idea of a cosmic consciousness ala Dr. Bucke!

An unspeakable horror seized me. There was a darkness; then a dizzy, sickening sensation of sight that was not like seeing; I saw a Line that was no Line; Space that was not Space: I was myself, and not myself. When I could find voice, I shrieked loud in agony, "Either this is madness or it is Hell." "It is neither, calmly replied the voice of the Sphere, "it is Knowledge; it is Three Dimensions: open your eye once again and try to look steadily."
I looked, and, behold, a new world! There stood before me, visibly incorporate, all that I had before inferred, conjectured, dreamed, of perfect Circular beauty. What seemed the centre of the Stranger's form lay open to my view: yet I could see no heart, lungs, nor arteries, only a beautiful harmonious Something -- for which I had no words; but you, my Readers in Spaceland, would call it the surface of the Sphere.

Prostrating myself mentally before my Guide, I cried, "How it is, O divine ideal of consummate loveliness and wisdom that I see thy inside, and yet cannot discern thy heart, thy lungs, thy arteries, thy liver?" "What you think you see, you see not," he replied; "it is not giving to you, nor to any other Being, to behold my internal parts. I am of a different order of Beings from those in Flatland. Where I a Circle, you could discern my intestines, but I am a Being, composed as I told you before, of many Circles, the Many in the One, called in this country a Sphere. And, just as the outside of a Cube is a Square, so the outside of a Sphere represents the appearance of a Circle."

Bewildered though I was by my Teacher's enigmatic utterance, I no longer chafed against it, but worshipped him in silent adoration. He continued, with more mildness in his voice. "Distress not yourself if you cannot at first understand the deeper mysteries of Spaceland. By degrees they will dawn upon you. Let us begin by casting back a glance at the region whence you came. Return with me a while to the plains of Flatland and I will shew you that which you have often reasoned and thought about, but never seen with the sense of sight -- a visible angle." "Impossible!" I cried; but, the Sphere leading the way, I followed as if in a dream, till once more his voice arrested me: "Look yonder, and behold your own Pentagonal house, and all its inmates."

I looked below, and saw with my physical eye all that domestic individuality which I had hitherto merely inferred with the understanding. And how poor and shadowy was the inferred conjecture in comparison with the reality which I now behold! My four Sons calmly asleep in the North-Western rooms, my two orphan Grandsons to the South; the Servants, the Butler, my Daughter,, all in their several apartments. Only my affection Wife, alarmed by my continued absence, had quitter her room and was roving up and down in the Hall, anxiously awaiting my return. Also the Page, aroused by my cries, had left his room, and under pretext of ascertaining whether I had fallen somewhere in a faint, was prying into the cabinet in my study. All this I could now see, not merely infer; and as we came nearer and nearer, I could discern even the contents of my cabinet, and the two chests of gold, and the tablets of which the Sphere had made mention.

Touched by my Wife's distress, I would have sprung downward to reassure her, but I found myself incapable of motion. "Trouble not yourself about your Wife," said my Guide: "she will not be long left in anxiety; meantime, let us take a survey of Flatland."

Once more I felt myself rising through space. It was even as the Sphere had said. The further we receded from the object we beheld, the larger became the field of vision. My native city, with the interior of every house and every creature therein, lay open to my view in miniature. We mounted higher, and lo, the secrets of the earth, the depths of the mines and inmost caverns of the hills, were bared before me.

Awestruck at the sight of the mysteries of the earth, thus unveiled before my unworthy eye, I said to my Companion, "Behold, I am become as a God. For the wise men in our country say that to see all things, or as they express it, omnividence, is the attribute of God alone." There was something of scorn in the voice of my Teacher as he made answer: "it is so indeed? Then the very pick-pockets and cut- throats of my country are to be worshipped by your wise men as being Gods: for there is not one of them that does not see as much as you see now. But trust me, your wise men are wrong."

I. Then is omnividence the attribute of others besides Gods?

Sphere. I do not know. But, if a pick-pocket or a cut-throat of our country can see everything that is in your country, surely that is no reason why the pick-pocket or cut-throat should be accepted by you as a God. This omnividence, as you call it -- it is not a common word in Spaceland -- does it make you more just, more merciful, less selfish, more loving? Not in the least. Then how does it make you more divine?

I. "More merciful, more loving!" But these are the qualities of women! And we know that a Circle is a higher Being than a Straight Line, in so far as knowledge and wisdom are more to be esteemed than mere affection.

Sphere. It is not for me to classify human faculties according to merit. Yet many of the best and wisest in Spaceland think more of the affections than of the understand, more of your despised Straight Lines than of your belauded Circles. But enough of this. Look yonder. Do you know that building?

I looked, and afar off I saw an immense Polygonal structure, in which I recognized the General Assembly Hall of the States of Flatland, surrounded by dense lines of Pentagonal buildings at right angles to each other, which I knew to be streets; and I perceived that I was approaching the great Metropolis.

"Here we descend," said my Guide. It was now morning, the first hour of the first day of the two thousandth year of our era. Acting, as was their wont, in strict accordance with precedent, the highest Circles of the realm were meeting in solemn conclave, as they had met on the first hour of the first day of the year 1000, and also on the first hour of the first day of the year 0.

The minutes of the previous meetings were now read by one whom I at once recognized as my brother, a perfectly Symmetrical Square, and the Chief Clerk of the High Council. It was found recorded on each occasion that: "Whereas the States had been troubled by divers ill- intentioned persons pretending to have received revelations from another World, and professing to produce demonstrations whereby they had instigated to frenzy both themselves and others, it had been for this cause unanimously resolved by the Grand Council that on the first day of each millenary, special injunctions be sent to the Prefects in the several districts of Flatland, to make strict search for such misguided persons, and without formality of mathematical exanimation, to destroy all such as were Isosceles of anyt degree, to scourge and imprison any regular Triangle, to cause any Square or Pentagon to be sent to the district Asylum, and to arrest any one of higher rank, sending him straightway to the Capital to be examined and judged by the Council."

"You hear your fate," said the Sphere to me, while the Council was passing for the third time the formal resolution. "Death or imprisonment awaits the Apostle of the Gospel of Three Dimensions." "Not so," replied I, "the matter is now so clear to me, the nature of real space so palpable, that methinks I could make a child understand it. Permit me but to descend at this moment and enlighten them." "Not yet," said my Guide, "the time will come for that. Meantime I must perform my mission. Stay thou there in thy place." Saying these words, he leaped with great dexterity into the sea (if I may so call it) of Flatland, right in the midst of the ring of Counsellors. "I come," said he, "to proclaim that there is a land of Three Dimensions."

I could see many of the younger Counsellors start back in manifest horror, as the Sphere's circular section widened before them. But on a sign from the presiding Circle -- who shewed not the slightest alarm or surprise -- six Isosceles of a low type from six different quarters rushed upon the Sphere. "We have him," they cried; "No; yes; we have him still! he's going! he's gone!"

"My Lords," said the President to the Junior Circles of the Council, "there is not the slightest need for surprise; the secret archives, to which I alone have access, tell me that a similar occurrence happened on the last two millennial commencements. You will, of course, say nothing of these trifles outside the Cabinet."

Raising his voice, he now summoned the guards. "Arrest the policemen; gag them. You know your duty." After he had consigned to their fate the wretched policemen -- ill-fated and unwilling witnesses of a State-secret which they were not to be permitted to reveal -- he again addressed the Counsellors. "My Lords, the business of the Council being concluded, I have only to wish you a happy New Year." Before departing, he expressed, at some length, to the Clerk, my excellent but most unfortunate brother, his sincere regret that, in accordance with recedent and for the sake of secrecy, he must condemn him to perpetual imprisonment, but added his satisfaction that, unless some mention were made by him of that day's incident, his life would be spared.

Cosmic Consciousness



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A consciousness of the cosmos, knowing the life and order of the universe. It is considered a higher, yet at present an exceptional peak in human evolution which the race is expected to reach in a distant future.

According to Dr. Richard M. Bucke (1837-1902), a friend of Walt Whitman, some individuals, mostly of the male sex, between 30 and 40, and who are highly developed with good intellect, high morals, a superior physique, and an earnest religious feeling can acquire this consciousness.

Dr. Bucke considered thirteen individuals to have possessed such a consciousness: Gautama, Jesus, Paul, Platinus, Mohammed, Dante, Las Casas, John Ypes, Francis Bacon, Jacob Behmen, William Blake, Balzac and Walt Whitman.

The experience comes suddenly without warning with a sensation of being immersed in a flame or rose-colored cloud and is accompanied by a feeling of ecstasy, moral and intellectual illumination in which, like a flash, a clear conception in outline is presented to the mind of the meaning and drift of the universe.

The man or woman going through this experience knows that the universe is a living presence, that life is eternal, the soul of man is immortal, the foundation principle of life is love, and the happiness of every individual in the long run is absolutely certain. All fear of death, all sense of sin is lost, and the personality gains added charm and is transfigured. In a few moments of the experience the individual will learn more than in years or months of study and will learn much that no study will teach.

Walt Whitman described cosmic consciousness as "ineffable light, light rare, untellable, light beyond all signs, descriptions and languages."

Dr. Bucke, whose conclusions was presented in his remarkable book Cosmic Consciousness, was a descendent of Sir Richard Walpole, and was in the position of superintendent of the Asylum for the Insane at London, Onterio, Canada, for 25 years.

Distinctly there are many degrees of higher consciousness from the elementary awareness of shared consciousness with other individuals to the perception of profound scientific insight, and the transcendental experience of the mystic. These represent the varying degrees of creative intelligence of the cosmos, the infinite divine principle represented in the anthropomorphic symbolism of "God" in the many religions of the world. A.G.H.

Bucke, Richard Maurice (1901). Cosmic Consciousness. New York: Innes & Sons.

Cosmic Consciousness (1901) – Richard Maurice Bucke, M.D.

The work of a Canadian doctor.

Developed an idea of a new consciousness as a mental evolution of mankind, where as it became increasingly common, and eventually general, it would lift the whole of human life to higher plane of existence.

During the formative years most men are having their originality suppressed and their opinions standardized by school and college routine.

Bucke was a student of the human mind, a psychologist, and he treated Illumination from the standpoint of psychology, as a very rare but definite and recognizable mental condition.

He considered that in the last three thousand years of human history, there were at least 14 undeniable cases of complete and permanent enlightenment, as well as other partial or temporary instances of Illumination.

Noticing the increase in frequency of experiences, he deduced that very gradually, the human race is in the process of developing a new kind of consciousness, far in advance of the ordinary human self-consciousness, which will eventually lift the human race above and beyond all the fears and ignorance’s, the brutalities and bestialities which beset it today.

He dealt with for distinct stages of consciousness observable in all living creatures: the perceptual mind of the lower animals, open only to sense impressions; the receptual mind of the higher animals, producing simple consciousness; the conceptual mind of human beings, accompanied by self-consciousness, and cosmic consciousness.

He shows that the human race has added several new kinds of consciousness over the evolution of time, i.e. colour sense, sense of fragrance, and musical sense.

Bucke argued that these new senses must have begun as sporadic, isolated instances of new awareness in a few individuals, and that they spread gradually with the passing of the generations until nearly all civilized races possessed them, though by no means to the same degree or completeness.

He himself had received temporary Illumination.

Contemporary William James once wrote of Bucke, “I believe that you have brought this kind of consciousness ‘home’ to the attention of the students of human nature… your book, dear Sir, is that it is an addition to psychology of first rate importance.”

Cosmic consciousness is a higher form of consciousness than that possessed by the ordinary man. The upper half of the animal kingdom possesses simple consciousness. Man possesses self-consciousness. Cosmic consciousness, in addition to the other two, is a third and higher consciousness.

Language is the objective of which self-consciousness is the subjective.

In the evolution of the intellect there are four distinct steps: The first of them was taken when the primary quality of excitable sensations were established. At this point began the acquisition and perfect registration of sense impressions, percepts.

A percept is a sense impression – a sound that is heard or an object that is seen and the impressions they make are percepts.

Individually and generation by generation the primordial brain accumulated these percepts, the constant repetition of which, calling for further and further registration led, in the struggle for existence and, under the law of natural selection, to an accumulation of cells in the central sense ganglia; the multiplication of cells made further registration possible; that, again, made further growth of the ganglia necessary, and so on.

At last a condition was reached in which it became possible for our ancestor to combine groups of these percepts into a recept. Similar percepts are registered one over the other until they are generalized into one compound percept or a recept, something that has been received.

Now the work of accumulation begins again on a higher plane of existence where the sensory organs keep steadily at work manufacturing percepts; the receptual centres keep steadily at work manufacturing more and yet more recepts from the old and the new percepts; the capacities of the central ganglia are constantly taxed to do the necessary registration of recepts; then as the ganglia by use and selection are improved they constantly manufacture from percepts and from the initial simple recepts, more and more complex, that is, higher and higher recepts.

After many thousands of generations have lived and died, comes a time when the mind has reached the highest possible point of purely receptual intelligence. Then another break in conscious thought, higher recepts are replaced by concepts.

A recept is a composite image of many thousands of percepts; it is itself an image abstracted from many images; but a concept is that same composite image, that same recept, named, ticketed, and dismissed. A concept is in fact a named recept – the name standing henceforth for the thing itself, that is, for the recept.

The revolution by which concepts were substituted for recepts has increased the efficiency of the brain for thought, the ability to replace big cumbersome recept by a simple sign.

As the possession of concepts implies the possession of language, so the possession of concepts and language (which are in reality two aspects of the same thing) implies the possession of self-consciousness.

There is a moment in the evolution of mind when the receptual intellect, capable of simple consciousness only, becomes almost quite instantaneously a conceptual intellect in possession of language and self-consciousness.

In the history of individual man the point is reached and passed at the age of three years; in the history of the human race it was reached and past several thousands of years ago.

Our intellect today is made up of a complex mix of percepts, recepts, and concepts.

A concept is made up of one or more recepts combined with probably several percepts. This complex recept is then marked by a sign; that is it is named and becomes a concept, which, after being named or marked, it is laid away in a vast storage house in the brain for later retrieval.

We have seen the expansion of the perceptual mind had a limit and that its own continued life led it to develop into the receptual mind and that the receptual mind inevitably developed into the conceptual mind, which leads us to the consideration of a corresponding outlet to be found for the conceptual mind, the cosmic consciousness.

The four stages the in the development of the human mind were: first, the perceptual mind, the mind made up of percepts or sense impressions; second, the mind made up of these and recepts, the receptual mind or simple consciousness; third, the mind made up of percepts, recepts and concepts, the conceptual or the self conscious mind; and fourth, there is the intuitional mind, the mind whose highest element is not a recept or a concept but an intuition. This is the mind in which sensation, simple consciousness and self-consciousness are supplemented with cosmic consciousness.

Much more modern than the birth of the intellect is that of the colour sense.

It is well known that the ability to distinguish different colours came at relatively late date:; Xenophanes knew of three colours of the rainbow, purple, red and yellow; even Aristotle spoke of the tri-coloured rainbow; and Democritus knew of no more than four colours – black, white, red and yellow.

Throughout the Homeric poems and the Bible the colour of sky is not once mentioned, therefore, apparently, not recognized.

In the Bible the sky and heaven are mentioned more than four hundred and thirty times, and still no mention of its colour.

In no part of the world is the blue of the sky more vivid and intense than in Greece and Asia Minor, where the Homeric poems were composed.

At first man distinguished only two colours, red and black. Under the name red was included the colour white, yellow and all intermediate tints. While under the name black was included all shades of blue and green.

As the sensations of red and black came into existence by the division of an original unital colour sensation , so in the process of time these also divided, and so on, until at present where apparently four colours, red, yellow, blue, and green have split up into the enormous number of shades of colour which are now reorganized and named.

The solar or other light rays that excite vision are named red, orange, yellow, green, and blue, indigo, violet. These rays differ in the length and amplitude of the waves that compose them, with red being the highest and violet being the lowest.

The energy of light waves has the power of exciting vision. Red rays have several more thousand times the ability for exciting vision than that of violet.

Then we are destroying ourselves in Iraq. Be that as it may, it could be otherwise. I'm mad as hell about the torture and this waste of human life and I put the blame for it squarely where it belongs, on the Republicans and everyone who didn't vote against them. Register. Vote. Exercise your free will.

In my opinion free will is an illusion created by our brain chemistry. Our brains are first set up in accordance to our genes, and once we are born all our actions and choices are simply reactions to sense experience, all processed through our brains in a purely systematical sense. As we continue through life, we perceive our actions as conscious decisions, but in truth it seems that when we really look at it, all actions and thoughts on our part are simply the result of electrical and chemical processes that run through our brain, which itself was initiated by genetics, and since then altered only through actions which are subject to this same deterministic thoery.

A study done on young adult prisoners highlights my point quite well. In this study, 231 anti-social prisoners were given supplements of vitamins, minerals and fatty acids. Compared with a control group, disciplinary offences reduced by 40% when they were given these supplements.

Now, when the control group did commit disciplinary action, can we say they chose to act violently through free will, or must we admit that it was due to the nature of the chemical system within their brains, all out of conscious control, which caused them to act as they thought they desired?

If they were happier would they manufacture the chemicals that were used in the study?

Does choice affect the body and its chemical production?

How does our mind make us sick? There has been some fascinating research over the past years which shows just how closely connected our minds are to our bodies: our habitual thoughts determine the state of our health and even our longevity.
One of the earliest and most interesting studies was performed on some rabbits at Ohio University in the seventies. The scientists were attempting to prove the relationship between a toxic, high cholesterol diet and hardening of the arteries. They thought that if they fed the rabbits' high cholesterol food, they should logically develop high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries and the other symptoms we have learned to associate with heart disease, which is still the largest killer in the Western world. The experiment was going along very well, with most of the bunnies developing the expected symptoms, except for one group of rabbits that were not having the expected results. The scientists just couldn't understand it -- they were feeding the rabbits in this group the same high cholesterol food, but the rabbits just weren't developing any of the predicted symptoms. No high blood pressure. No hardening of the arteries. No hypertension. Nothing.
Fortunately for the study, and unfortunately for the rabbits, the technician who was feeding that particular group of rabbits fell ill. Almost immediately, her rabbits started developing the expected symptoms! Naturally the scientists were curious as to why and asked her what she had done differently. "Why nothing," she said, "I fed the rabbits the food as you told me to. I took them out of their cages, held them, stroked them, and sang to them, fed them. Wasn't this right?"
It was the same food, but the rabbits' minds turned the high cholesterol food into other channels, which protected their health! The scientists were amazed. They thought they were studying hardening of the arteries; they were really studying the effects of love. They tried this over and over again and found that rabbits that were loved simply wouldn't fall ill as readily. Isn't this amazing? And this was just rabbits, not even people! How can love change the effect of food? So the moral is: if you're going to eat Big Macs, sit on your boyfriend's lap while you're eating it.
We do exactly the same thing. Our minds control our bodies. You've probably heard of the placebo effect? 30% of patients can be given a chalk tablet and told that they will get well and they do get well. There is also a nocebo effect. A physician tells a patient, "I'm very sorry to tell you, Mrs. Jones, but your breast cancer has metastasized throughout your internal organs; you'll be dead in six weeks." If Mrs. Jones believes her doctor, her body will respond and kill her.
For decades, surgeons assumed that if you were unconscious during surgery, it didn't matter what was said in the operating room. But it was found that what is said affects the likelihood of recovery! If they open you up and say, "Oh, look at that, it's worse than we thought -- " then your chance of recovery goes way down. The more positive the surgeon's remarks, the greater the chance of recovery. The power of the mind is awesome.
In a study of four hundred spontaneous remissions of cancer interpreted by Elmer and Alyce Green of the Menninger Clinic there was only one factor in common -- every person changed his or her attitude before the remission occurred, fundamentally changed his or her way of thinking, became more hopeful, courageous, positive. They somehow broke through the collective consciousness, through their self-destructive beliefs and programs and changed their minds on a fundamental level, deep inside. And so they were "miraculously" cured.
The collective belief system extends deeply into our minds. Did you know that our society has even given us a standard time to die? I'm not kidding! There is a day and a time when it is more likely you will die than any other? Do you know when that is? That's right, 9 AM on Monday morning. Why is that? It just seems easier to die than face another week of this horrible job! This is a truly remarkable achievement of our species. Presumably no other species recognizes which day Monday is. The power of the mind is everything.
Some scientists at the University of Miami a few years ago heard of the rabbit study in Ohio and decided to do an experiment to see if this effect might also hold true for humans. They decided to do a study on preemies -- premature babies -- because in intensive care, they are very expensive and the rate of survival is not that high. What are we, seventeenth in the world for infant mortality? Not so hot. So three times a day for fifteen minutes, wearing rubber gloves, the technicians stroked the tiny babies inside their intensive care units. They didn't call it "stroking," of course; they called it "tactile kinesthetic stimulation," which is the Orwellian term for stroking. God forbid we should call it love!
These scientists concluded that tactile kinesthetic stimulation is cost effective, for these preemies gained an average of 49% more weight per day, which meant that they were discharged from intensive care an average of five days earlier for a saving of $3,000 per admission. The amazing thing to me about this study is that it ever had to be done! How could our doctors and scientists have become so absurdly divorced from common sense to have to do a study to prove this, a fact that any mother knows? My heart especially grieves for the preemies in the control group at the University of Miami who didn't have the good fortune to experience tactile kinesthetic stimulation. But the good news is that most hospitals are embracing this information and are permitting more contact with newborns. Physical contact for newborns is vital to ensure proper development and growth.
Dr. Herbert Specter at the National Institute performed another study that illustrates this mind-body connection even more graphically for Health -- this one on some mice. Dr. Specter divided the mice into two groups. One group was the control group; he gave a potent immune-system-stimulating drug called Poly I-C to the other. Poly I-C increases the number of killer T-cells in the immune system. When he gave the drug to the mice, he also exposed them to the smell of camphor. Do you know what camphor is? It is a pungent-smelling material that most drug stores sell in the form of little white cubes. People think it helps with congestion and breathing problems. It is impossible to forget the scent once you've smelled it. It's the active ingredient in Campho-Phenique. Dr. Specter treated the mice for a few weeks with the Poly I-C and the camphor, and then took the drug away and just let them smell the camphor. Do you know what happened? Their immune systems were still stimulated -- they had become mighty mice -- no bacteria could make them sick, no tumors would develop if they were exposed to cancer- causing agents.
Another group tried this the opposite way at the University of Rochester. They took rats and administered a potent immune-system-destroying drug, cyclophosphamide -- cyclophosphamide is used in organ transplants, it keeps the body from rejecting the new organ -- and at the same time gave them a taste of saccharine-sweetened water, substituting this for camphor as a neutral agent. After doing this, a number of times, they took the drug away and just allowed the rats to taste the water. With just the smallest taste of the sweetened water, they would fall sick, develop tuberculosis or pneumonia from the slightest intrusion of bacteria or develop cancer from a very slight exposure to a carcinogen. Do you see what's going on here? The two groups were interpreting a completely neutral agent differently.
This shows how much our interpretation of reality influences our experience of reality. If we have learned to associate bad health or unhappiness with our experience of life, it becomes a very difficult habit to break. Think of a set of twins. Both have identical backgrounds, both have the same parents, the same heredity, the same environment; they are treated virtually the same. What happens? One grows up to be successful and happy, has a wonderful family, lives to a ripe old age. The other becomes an alcoholic and is dead by thirty-six. What causes the difference? The interpretation of reality. Our society may have deeply programmed condemnation and judgment into us, and we may have learned to look at all of life and say, "Oh, bad, the glass is half empty." But it is just as easy to say, "Oh, good, the glass is half full." And that is completely within our power.
It is the mind that is dominant. In Massachusetts, a group of scientists were studying the risk factors for heart disease because about 50% of those who contract this fatal killer didn't fit any of the known profiles: they didn't smoke, they didnt have a high cholesterol diet, they didn't even have hypertension, and yet they had a myocardial infarction, a heart attack, and died. Why?
These scientists found that they could ask two very simple questions to determine whether a person was likely to have heart problems. Do you know what these two questions were? First, "Do you like your job?" If you could say, "Yes," to this, your risk of heart attack falls by 50%. And second, "Are you happy?" And again a, "Yes," answer drops your risk of heart attack by another 50%. What is the difference between health and disease? It seems more and more it is determined by our thoughts, our beliefs, the way we use our minds.
Another study showed that if you do happen to have a heart attack, your chance of recovery is virtually 100% if you are happily married. This was found much more important than diet, exercise or smoking. The mind controls the body, not the other way around. The old thinking was that the body was dominant and the mind was a ghost in the machine, a fantasy. But if you take the body away, the mind remains! This was confirmed by Karl Lashley, a pioneer in neurophysiology. He trained rats to run in a maze, and then began to systematically remove their brain tissue. He kept taking out more and more and found that their brains worked just fine. He took out as much as 90% and the rats still could run the maze!
John Lorber, a British neurologist, found something similar in a human patient. His specialty is hydrocephalics -- people with water on the brain. A patient was referred to him with an unusually large head, but no other symptoms. The patient was a gifted college student, majoring in mathematics, with an IQ of 130. Dr. Lorber performed a brain scan on him and found that his cortex was only one millimeter thick! The normal is over 4.5 centimeters! Fluid had replaced over 98% of the neurons used for thinking, and he was still above average!
There has been a revolution going on in the forefront of the medical profession during the past decade. The old notion that the body is primary and the mind is secondary is being more and more deeply questioned. The old thinking that the body is a frozen sculpture, never-changing, is falling by the wayside. We breathe in 10 to the 22nd power in atoms of air with every breath, that's 100000000000000000000000. These atoms become part of our organs and tissues. With every breath, we breathe out part of our body, which goes to become part of other people's bodies. For example, right now there are about a million atoms in you that used to be part of Michelangelo, about a million that were part of Da Vinci, about a million that were once in Genghis Khan. The body is continually changing, it is not frozen sculpture, and it is in a constant state of flux. You breathe today atoms that were yesterday part of a peasant in China.
Radioactive isotope studies have shown that we change 98% of the atoms of our body every single year. And the atoms in some of our body parts change even more quickly than that: we have a new skin once a month, a new liver every six weeks. Even the skeleton, which seems so solid and permanent, is changed completely every three months. We have a new stomach lining every five days; the surface cells, which contact the digesting food, are changed as often as every five minutes. We have a new DNA every six weeks. Even the brain cells (which do not regenerate as do the other cells in the body) weren't there last year in terms of the atoms composing them. 98% of the atoms in your body weren't there last year! It is as if we have a magical building, in which the building blocks are being replaced at the rate of 98% a year, and because we don't know any better, we keep putting the blocks in exactly the same places, over and over and over again. If we have a tumor, we rebuild the tumor. If we're old, we rebuild the body old. If we're sick, we rebuild the body sick.
But if we could become the friend of the contractor who is directing how the building is being built, then we could change the order in which the bricks were being placed. If we could gain familiarity with the inner programmer who is directing exactly how those atoms are being replaced, we could rebuild our tissues and organs and cells in a different fashion. We would gain a truly awesome power for health.
This is possible because the body is really a thinking machine.

Some philosophical input from the inimitable Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil:

~~~

17. With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds--namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish; so that it is a PERVERSION of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." ONE thinks; but that this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "one thinks"--even the "one" contains an INTERPRETATION of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the usual grammatical formula--"To think is an activity; every activity requires an agency that is active; consequently" . . . It was pretty much on the same lines that the older atomism sought, besides the operating "power," the material particle wherein it resides and out of which it operates--the atom. More rigorous minds, however, learnt at last to get along without this "earth-residuum," and perhaps some day we shall accustom ourselves, even from the logician's point of view, to get along without the little "one" (to which the worthy old "ego" has refined itself).

18. It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable; it is precisely thereby that it attracts the more subtle minds. It seems that the hundred-times-refuted theory of the "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it.

...

21. The CAUSA SUI is the best self-contradiction that has yet been conceived, it is a sort of logical violation and unnaturalness; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with this very folly. The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this CAUSA SUI, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness. If any one should find out in this manner the crass stupidity of the celebrated conception of "free will" and put it out of his head altogether, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "non-free will," which is tantamount to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly MATERIALISE "cause" and "effect," as the natural philosophers do (and whoever like them naturalize in thinking at present), according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure CONCEPTIONS, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and mutual understanding,--NOT for explanation. In "being-in-itself" there is nothing of "casual- connection," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does NOT follow the cause, there "law" does not obtain. It is WE alone who have devised cause, sequence, reciprocity, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose; and when we interpret and intermix this symbol-world, as "being-in-itself," with things, we act once more as we have always acted--MYTHOLOGICALLY.

L_T, I wish I had a clearer understanding of the meaning of that quote you give, from Beyond Good and Evil, by Nietzsche (1844-1900). Could you, in plain English, summarize what it means to you?

ABOUT NIETZSCHE
Interestingly, Nietzsche was the son of protestant, Lutheran, minister, and both of his grandparents were ministers--all probably conservative Lutherans.

Nietzsche grew up under Christian dogmatists, many of whom were members of his family, who preached that people who failed to accept the teaching of the reformed and true church, of God, deserved to be hated and sent to hell. The German Christianity of his time was anti-reason. I was also, anti physical, mental and intellectual excellence. In addition many Christians were moral hypocrites.

His own ideal? The passionate person willing to use passion in all kinds of creative activity.

Could it was his failure to find such creative people is what drove him into shutting himself off--he even resigned his university post--from the world and into insanity?

Also interesting is that Nietzsche broke off his friendship with Wagner, because Wanger was an mean anti-semite. Wagner also hated the French call for liberty and fraternity and was a great supporter of the newly founded German empire, which Nietszche detested.

Excellent, Joesus! Talk about the awesome power for good which the human will has when it is motivated by agape--The Greek for good-will, or spiritual love.

And it seems that this awesome power can do much harm when it is motivated by misos--The Greek for ill-will, or hate.

I hope that all readers will take the time to read this very interesting information which you have provided. If someone were to ask you to give documented references, would you be able to do so?

you mean provide more materials to further influence ones ability to know the truth? I think if anyone wishes to study the facts they will lead themselves to what they want to believe and what they are capable of believing. Anyone can pursue these facts by doing their own research, rather than taking my post or any other as fact and absolute.

Some may resonate with the issues provided and others will pass by letting it go without notice.
You can lead those who wish to follow but only so far.
Personal effort to break the boundaries of illusion is primary in the individual awakening in any science be it spiritual or physical or by intelligently combining the two.

Ideas may come without the awareness of impulse or desire but that does not mean there is no underlying intelligence to consciousness. The fact that it escapes the attention of the mind that bounces about on the surface does not mean we have no choice or that choice is irrelevant and has no affect on how we perceive ourselves and life itself, and in the form or experience of sickness and or health.
Nothing just happens to us without out participation be it conscious or unconscious.

A university did a study and estimated we think some 100,000 thoughts per day, these thoughts being repeated thoughts based on fear, stress, habit or unconscious awareness.
If one is focused and attentive to a particular desire all energy will be pointed to achieving a desire. If the attention is spread out these thoughts are often conflicting thoughts such as "I wish I was more financially independant" circling with an underlying belief of "I never get what I want"

Making assumptions from the experiences created at these levels of conscious awareness are at best like firing an arrow at the sun from the inside of a cave where the sunlight does not exist. The mind is jumping from one idea to another like a monkey searching for the ideal banana.

I think inspiring expanding thought rather than delegating a thought as an authoritive is much more enlivening.(Thoughts that lead to expansion of consciousness rather than the narrowing of reality into finite absolutes)
Inspiring thought at deeper levels of thinking such as from a baseline of stillness and awareness of the Self much more stable than from a changing baseline in facts and changing opinions based on new facts and more new facts and more new facts and more......Where the mind is chattering to itself in the 100,000 thoughts it thinks.

But what can you do? The intellect which is attached to the ego thinks it has something, in the accumulated facts it stuffs in its box. The more facts it has the more it thinks it knows something, the more it thinks it knows something the more distant it gets from potential as it narrows the absolute infinite into form and into a thick tar road it will follow until it dies with its facts.
Some think thoughts are productive and are a sign of intelligence but if you think of yourself wearing a circle in the floor while tending to your thoughts productive, then that is what you think and if you further think that you are obliged to live this way because you have no say in what thoughts come and go in your mind then you are having a thought and at the same time identifying with that thought and that is a choice you make.............. or not.

"A man is but the product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi-

A valid question Lindsay!

The difference here is that Nietzsche was well aware of the deterioration in his mental capacity. Phenomenal if you really sit and think about the work he produced in questionable states of mind. However his theory of free-will was well before his obsession with making life a pious experience.

In these debates I have found that each person will define "free will" just in such a way as to support their preconceived opinion on the topic. Thus, they are guaranteed to reach the "right" conclusion. But what this shows me is that they are consequently not debating the same thing. And as with the stalemate on agreement about free will, the stalemate extends into reaching agreement on just what it means.

When I see such endless lack of resolution to the issue, I tend to put on my pragmatic hat and say that we should abandon the term "free will" in regards to determining praise and blame, which is its main purported utility, and examine those issues on their own terms. Yeah, it may be fun to debate "free will" as a mental exercise, but let's not get hung up on it in any practical sense.

Perhaps tha biggest obstacle faced is that most people do not argue to discover the truth; they argue to impose their belief.

Whether or not our minds effect our bodies does not defeat the fact that our brains control our consciousness, and we cannot intervein with how our brain works as a system. You may say we can effect it with our lifestyle choice etc. but we must remember that these choices are controlled by the very same brain system first set up by genes. At no point can we say that we have free will, because all 'free' actions we take are produced through chemical and electrical reactions in the brain.

For example, lets say you 'decide' to go and get a glass of water. The idea comes from a stimulus that reminds you how thirsty you are. More to the point, the electrical signals from your senses enter your mind, are interpreted, chemically, and from this it triggers the imagination center to reproduce the idea in your mind. This thought stimulates the reward center and you feel the desire to quench your thirst. This desire is felt by you, and you feel yourself choosing to get the drink. But this choice action is just chemicals and neuron firing within the frontal cortex, acting in a way that was originally set-up by genes. Your actions would repeat themselves exactly if the conditions were the same. (I do realise that quantum theory makes this argument less regimented, the decision you made would not be the same, because of the random actions of electrons. But this doesn't give us free will. This means that our actions aren't even truely yours, but an amount of random activity alters it also.)

At what point could you say you decided to get the water? You may say that you acted in a way unique to how your brain is. But your brain acts as designated by genes, and since then changes as a result of actions which were just as un-free as this one.

Isn't this a statement in accord with your own preconceived resolute answer??

Would this be a choice in free will, or due to the neccessity of your own personal road to an end? What is this we should stuff? I'm hearing the suggestion that we are not in accord with a relative truth..maybe this suggests we can't, or won't, or maybe we don't wanna..

We hold these truths to be self-evident.....

This famous line of the Declaration of Independence was originally: We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable;
Jefferson changed sacred and undeniable to self-evident during the writing of his Rough Draft of the Declaration.

What was he thinking??!!!!

So your saying the inability to correctly spell intervene is due to your genes..

Yes, alongside actions since. But these actions were also not free.


Btw, I find that using spelling to reduce an argument isn't the best method to truely get to the heart of the matter. Maybe criticising the subject matter in an intellectual manner may help.

Well, I actually just put it here as a prospective, use-it/don't-use-it suggestion kind of thing. But I can certainly explain what it means to me... though of course I stand to be corrected as I am merely a fan of Nietzsche, and not a very informed one at that.

Anyway, after that introductory disclaimer...

In 17, Nietzsche discusses the way we think about our thinking. He points out that, to put it crudely, we cannot think the thoughts we want to think (a thought comes when "it" wishes - whatever that "it" may be, which is beside the point - and not when "I" wish). This is verifiable: sit still, and try not to think of a red penguin, or try to think no thought at all, and you soon realise that the thoughts we casually call our own are not actually under our control. So our standard "I think...", as if "I" am an active agent and "think" is an activity done under the agency of an "I", is a misleading representation of the true state of affairs.

Then I think (heheh) he goes further and says that even to say "one thinks" is an overrepresentation; and here I think he's undermining the idea that there is an "I" that thinks at all.

Although I could very well be wrong in my interpretation of 17 (and so perhaps I just haven't probed it carefully enough) I find 18 a bit more confusing. Nietzsche waxes quite lyrical about "charming" theories like the theory of free will, which he says has been refuted a hundred times. (Has it therefore ever been finally refuted? Presumably if it had then the later attempts would not have been necessary, so perhaps he's implying it has never been satisfactorily refuted, though I don't think this is what he means.) Perhaps he just means that the theory has been refuted but people keep wanting to resurrect it. I don't think it's worth reading too much into this - it's really just an anecdote, a kind of explanation for the persistence of the idea of a "free will" simply because people keep wanting to disprove it and not let it rest.

Then, in 21...

A causa sui is something which is its own cause (like the classical metaphysical God, who is either uncaused or His own cause). The idea of a causa sui is absurd, contrary to all empirical as well as logical investigation, but it persists because man cannot relinquish the illusion of himself (or his will) as a causa sui - a self-determining agent.

Then he goes further and says please, once you have realised the absurdity of the "free will" (since it requires an absurd causa sui) and abandoned it in this way, take your thinking a step further and reject also its opposite, which is non-free will - the kind of enslaved, tram-like 'will' we might imagine ourselves to possess were determinism to be true. Don't fall into the trap of thinking, "If not P, then P." In the true state of affairs, he says, cause and effect are mere conceptions and should not be materialised (imagined to be real). A theory of determinism (i.e. non-free will) rests on a theory of causal mechanics, and relies upon causes and effects to be real and to bear necessary relations to one another.

But causes and effects are not real, saith Nietzsche, and bear no necessary relations to one another. We devised these concepts (cause, sequence... etc... freedom, motive, purpose) and when we materialise them we make an error - we forget that, as he points out elsewhere, every concept is a conventional fiction arising from the equation of unequal things. Concepts have no necessary correspondence to the true state of reality, and in fact the concepts of cause and effect bear no correspondence at all thereto (our entire idea of cause and effect is a conventional fiction) so when we think that the world corresponds to our conceptions of it, that effect follows cause, and that since our thoughts are caused our wills are not free, we are thinking mythologically.

So in this way he rejects utterly the "free will", but also points out that people often imagine a false dichotomy between free will on the one hand and determinism on the other. This is a mistake: neither free will nor determinism is really accurate.

Does that make things clearer?

No you probably wouldn't reduce an argument to the details but I would have to say because I must I must I must, that if you are predisposed to not be cognisant, or consciously being aware of what you are doing such as spelling correctly, that you are necessarily predisposed to unconsciously accept anything as truth without really paying attention, leaving me who is not predisposed to be you genetically, to disagree because I have a predisposition to accept being more cognisant at deeper levels of thought and expression. And less close minded about being controlled in my levels of inspiration and choice by a pile of fleshy matter as a belief in the essence of who I am, being no more than that.

It isn't defeatism to accept determinism, it is realistic. Just because I accept determinism as a philosophical idea doens't mean I don't try to live life to the fullest. Even if I don't have free will, I percieve it, and so it is only acceptable to try to act in a way that reflects that.

Also, whether I am right or wrong about my ideas, we both have as much free will as each other, so don't try to use that argument to feed your narcissistic supply.

Realism is subjective, as is perception, at least you haven't completely ignored your free will to make your claims as you see fit. What is inherent is reflected in experience. The potential absolute allows for all your beliefs and your perceptions be it limited in scope and vision, or expanded beyond finite definitions.

In other words, for Nietzsche, our wills are relatively free and relatively determined. Chalk up another point for Aristotle and his golden mean.

causality and determinism apply to the phenomenon. To go beyond involves extrapolating beyond experience.

Well, I'm afraid I would say that this is a mistake.

The Golden Mean is a felicitous middle between two extremes - one of excess and one of deficiency. In this context, the excess might be "free will" and the deficiency might be "un-free will".

But I don't think this is what Nietzsche intends. Nietzsche began his diatribe on the issue by attacking the idea itself that a "will" might exist at all. He rejected the existence of both "free will" and "un-free will".

Now, if both extremes are rejected - if we prove that neither "free will" nor "un-free will" exist - then the true state of affairs cannot be somewhere between them. If it was, it would be defined in terms of things that we know don't exist - it would itself be a fiction. So I don't think that the golden mean follows from Nietzsche's take on this issue.

A line of argument for your perusal...

What if we examine closely the relationships between cause and effect?

For causality, cause and effect must relate to one another.

If we examine their relationship in time, we deduce that there are only three ways that cause and effect could relate to one another. Either (1) cause precedes effect, or (2) cause and effect are simultaneous, or (3) effect preceeds cause. No other situation is possible.

(1) It is impossible for cause to precede effect. If this were the case, there would be no moment when they both existed - cause would have ceased by the time effect arose - so they could not interact. But they must interact, otherwise they could not have a relationship, and there would be no causality.

(2) Cause and effect cannot be simultaneous. If this were the case, both cause and effect would arise simultaneously, and the cause would have no time to produce the effect. There would be no relationship between them, and there would be no causality.

(3) Effect cannot precede cause. If this were the case, then events would occur before their causes. Letters would appear on the screen before I typed them. Tea would be made before the water was boiled. Obviously, this is not the case.

So none of the three ways in which cause and effect could relate to one another are possible. Cause and effect do not have a relationship. So there is no causality.

sounds like the Zeno paradox, or something from Hume. Drawing the analogy with the Zeno paradox, we know motion is possible because we experience it although by treating space as a continuum, we run into problems. With cause and effect, the problem results from treating time as a continuum. The cause can precede the effect if time is discrete and not continuous. The notion of cause and effect can be argued to come about from our experience of it whereby we make associations based on events and things in our consciousness. That is, we learn causality through experience, and mean it in such a way that if event B always follows event A, then A 'causes' B (and also precedes B). Hence, causes precede effects, within the basis of our experience.

Can anyone think of a cause which has no effect?
That is, can you think of an event which has absolutely no effect on anything?

Also remember that a cause can have many effects.
Also remember that multiple causes can affect the same (following)
event.
Also remember that every effect becomes a new cause.

Since effects always have causes, it follows that if Gods exist, there was a cause for them. SuperGods and Prime Gods, and Ultimate Gods and Pan Gods, and prime pan Gods ad infinitum!!!

Manifestation, all causes perceived in physical form, have no affect on the absolute, it's only a reflection of the interaction between consciousness being still and in it's movement as intelligence.

L_T writes You mean to say that Nietzsche actually believed that it impossible for a human being to will to do anything? For example, make or write a will? Or, make the choice, "I will go to bed"? (Which I will to do, in a few minutes.)

No wonder a friend of mine said, "I have difficulty suffering the ramblings of existentialists." If everything is everything, and ultimately, nothing matters, then life really is "absurd" (Sartre) and a "dirty trick" (Hemmingway). If so, why bother?

Zeno's paradox about the tortoise who challenged Hercules to a race was mentioned. The Tortoise boasted to Hercules: " If you will give me a short lead, I will surely win." Hercules agreed.

It is said that Hercules was dumb enough to listen to the three-stooges-like logic the tortoise then offered for making his boast. It caused Hercules to give up, in despair.

Both of them must have been existentialists. Does existentialism, carried to extreme, drive some thinkers, such as Nietzsche, nuts?

existentialism and Zeno's paradox have nothing in common

I don't know whether Nietzsche believed it was impossible for a human being to will. All I'm saying is that he pointed out that the ways in which we ordinarily think about these things - in statements like "I think" or "I will", or even "one thinks" or "one wills" - are replete with questionable assumptions.

I don't think he would have rejected outright the idea that willing occurs. But he would point out that it needn't necessarily follow from this that something wills (i.e. "the will"). And it would be an even more audacious leap to suggest that that the willing thing is "my will", as the commonsense or folk understanding of the will would have it.

But I'd like to add at this point that I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, so if anyone is then I'd be very pleased if they would like to correct me on this.


I dig it, Dianah.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF PHILOSOPHERS
====================================
It seems to me that those who profess ot be philosophers are responsible to be at least three things: 1. Moral and ethical in their intentions 2. Knowlegable and somewhat wise regarding that of which they write and speak, and 3. Be clear about what they know, and able to communicate their ideas to people with a modest education.

It is not clear to me that Nietzsche is all that clear. About Nietzsche and some quotes by him. Some are clear; some are not clear. In a separate post I will give a full quote of his regarding what he said about the death of God:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche



Good.
=========================
Friedrich Nietzsche and
his philosophy of the Superman
Between the very many interventions of his sister Elisabeth and also given the misrepresentations of his work that are associated with the Nazi Era it is difficult to get a true picture of Friedrich Nietzsche and his philosophical legacy.
==================================================
L_T

Friedrich Nietzsche
God is dead quote

Friedrich Nietzsche is notable for having declared that God is dead and for having written several of his works in the presumption that man must find a new mode of being given the demise of God. Perhaps the most interesting quote on this theme appears in his The Gay Science (aka Joyous Wisdom). A fairly full version of this key quote is set out immediately below:-

Nietzsche Thus spoke Zarathustra
In my opinion, any god/God who can be killed by "rationalism and science" was never alive. Such a god/God is not worth believing in.

Are you then an expert on Nietzsche? I don't see the point of bringing "God is dead" into this discussion, unless you want to discredit Nietzsche's comments on free will by association with his comments on God.

As you rightly point out, it is difficult to get a coherent idea of Nietzsche's philosophical legacy. This is probably as much due to the unsystematic nature of his thinking as it is due to confusion regarding: his alleged association with Nazism (by proxy with his association with Wagner); the declaration "God is dead" (made not by him, but by his 'madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours', though Nietzsche himself comes close to saying the same thing in his personal capacity); and the allegation that he is difficult to read.

I think it's necessary to clear away the confusion regarding Nietzsche, which seem to aid his detractors but really just muddy the waters, but this isn't the place. I'll make a topic about (mis)Understanding Nietzsche forthwith, which I invite you to read so that I can respond without cluttering the discussion on free will...

Where there is no effect, there is no cause to seek out.

"Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law."--The Kybalion

No. But I wish I were. As one who has read the STORY OF PHILOSOPHY, by Will R. Durant, plus what I find on the Web, I am simply one of those interested enough in understanding Nietzsche's ideas and suggestions.

He was truly such a famous philosopher. I really want to know what he was all about and what actions he asked us to do. Are you aware of what they are?

BTW, thanks for your comment, L_T I look forward to your posts.

Tell us: In your opinion, who was Nietzsche? What did he really accomplish which still demands our attention?

wrote L_T.

To be honest, I feel that Nietzsche was, what I call, pneumatological, or spiritually, ill--that is, he, for whatever his reasons, chose to be insane. I state this, simply, as a fact, not as a judgement. Personally speaking, I feel very sorry for what Nietzsche went through.

Why did I bring him into the discussion? Simple. I brought Nietzsche's comments into this discussion because others did so before I did.

I think maybe our Will is not Free but it doesn't mean that it is not part-free. I do not deny influense on our decisions but to deny that we have at least some choice is unrealistic i think. I mean just to prove that i have some degree of free will - i can swing my arm up and down all day until i am tired or for example meditate until i die or something. It has been done before.

Part of the problem (and the attraction) of the free will question is defining terms. I don't speak for them, but I think that the partisans of the non-free side of the controversy will agree that to have free will does not mean that every person must be 100% free all the time. I think they will concede that if it can be shown that some people are at least somewhat free some of the time, then they have lost the argument.

The gist of the non-free will (what I call slave will) side of the argument is that

1. There is no supernatural. Materialism suffices for explanation of everything. (I agree with this)

2. Therefore, because mind is a brain mechanism, all behavior is "caused" by mechanistic neural activity, and therefore everything a person does is not in his control. Feelings of control are merely illusory. (I agree we are mechanisms, but I disagree that self-control is illusory)

In my philosophy, consciousness plays a key role. Neuroscien