A Question Regarding Free Will
-
(I like a lot - most? all? of the answers so far. Adding...)
Yes, True Will has little or nothing to do with free will as usually expressed, and has almost nothing to do with a personality's choices.
Qabbalistically, Will is motion. True Will is the sum of all the vectors operative in a person's life. These vectors include biological restrictions, other resistances and restrictions in life, the social connections we hold onto and the considerations we place and attach to them, as well as all the empowerments, etc.
To understand it, look at it in nature: Look at erosion patterns down a hill, how gullies are carved. Given the conditions of gravity, water's molecular cohesion, etc., water at the top of a hill will make it to the bottom (unless it finds a natural stopping place such as a basin where it can pool; and then, given enough water, it still will overflow and move down, taking other water with it). When you look at how gullies are carved in soil you see the inevitability of water motion - what it in fact will do - interacting with harder and softer parts of the soil.
This is us moving through life; and by True Will we consider all of this - the water, the laws of gravity and molecular cohesion, the hard and soft parts of the soil, etc.
One can take this ride happily or unhappily. Thelema counsels taking it happily (joyously, ecstatically). This is rarely done by the personality taking the reins to force a direction. It is nearly always done by the personality discovering and acknowledging the true motion of a star through existence and then consciously conforming its choices to that actuality.
-
@Jason R said
"
If it is the case, that we do not have free will, then it seems to stand to reason that we could not truly perform our True Will. At the very least this may mean (if we hold onto the idea of a True Will) that we can not help but do whatever is within our nature. Another idea, I feel, would be that we would have to change the subconscious root where choices really take place. What are your thoughts? Thanks."Sam Harris is a great, great modern rationalist thinker and I love him to bits. His recent book Waking Up is quite amazing. Apart from being a top drawer rationalist, scientist and philosopher, he's done a lot of "seeking" with gurus in India and Tibet, culminating in his meeting one of the main Dzogchen guys and finishing it. His stance of persuading rationalists and atheists not to throw out the baby of meditation practices with the bathwater of religion (even though he's one of the main bathwater-thrower-outers of recent times) is very brave in the context of his rationalist fellows.
HOWEVER, on this matter of free-will, he's a bit off the mark. There's an extremely cogent response to his position by another great philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett (it shows you how honest a thinker Harris is that he's reprinted that critique on his own website here).
The upshot is that there's a philosophical concept of Free Will (with capitals, as it were) that's the idea of a chooser that's totally free to choose anything, and there's a practical concept of free will (no capitals, as it were) that's constrained by, but compatible with, determinism (in fact couldn't exist without determinism). The former doesn't exist (or at least, it's not something we could have), the latter does, and as Dennett says, there's no particular objection to carrying on calling it "free will."
To get the gist of it, think of a robot, which is a deterministic machine, which has to be so sophisticated that it's able to survive through all sorts of environmental changes and possibilities. That robot will (as a purely deterministic machine, remember) have a range of options for action from which it has to choose to attain an optimal outcome. That robot has free will, of a perfectly ordinary kind, the same kind that we have (since we are essentially "moist robots" ourselves). The key is to understand that a deterministic machine doesn't have omniscience, so it has to make choices for action, on the basis of limited information. The world machinery is deterministic, and the choice machinery the robot has is deterministic, but because of the knowledge gap, because of the unknown, the two levels of determinism mean that the robot's choice is not itself determined directly by the world machinery (it's determined by its own internal workings).
The question of determinism has to be kept separate from the question of fatalism: what will be will be, certainly. The robot will make whatever choices it makes, the world will go as it goes. And if you shift your perspective to an omniscient perspective, certainly both the world and the robot are determined to do what they do: and that's the reason why there's no such thing as Free Will. But that fact doesn't nullify the fact that the robot has free will - i.e. makes choices (via its own internal deterministic processes) based on limited information. It's really just a question of perspective - zoom out and all the system's parts are indeed determined in one way or another, in the broad sense (hence no Free Will), zoom in and you have "pockets" of determinism that don't necessarily interact deterministically in the same sense. (hence free will).
If you want to be cute, you could say that the robot is determined to make choices, but the choices it makes aren't necessarily determined by the rest of the world, they're determined by its own inner deterministic machinery, which is to some extent sealed off, and independent of the world machinery it's making choices against.
Now, how this intersects with questions Thelemic (IMHO) is this:- as moist robots, we tend to not have access and free flow to all the inner workings that make us up. In particular, we suffer from a cognitive illusion in which we think we have a "self" inside us. This is really the result of the way the brain interprets its own workings, models its own inner workings, in a crude sense: what it does is posit for itself a "virtual captain" of its own crew of gadgets and sub-gadgets. There is no such "captain", but the "captain" represents shifting coalitions of gadgets and sub-gadgets (in Thelemic terms, spirits, gods, demons) in the brain's "folk model" of its own inner workings. It's analogous to a cursor on a screen: there is no actual thing floating above the surface of the screen, it's just a handy convenience to have that illusion.
But what happens is that we (as moist robots) get stuck in thinking that we essentially are that "virtual captain", and we start to arrange our lives to protect and perpetuate that "virtual captain" (as opposed simply to having our cognitive machinery steer the moist robot that we are, through life).
The discovery of the True Will is first of all, the accessing, by the moist robot that we are, of the total process that we are, and realizing that the total process is what we are - and the shift from thinking of ourselves as the "virtual captain", to understanding that the "virtual captain" is virtual, doesn't actually exist, and is just a convenience (or "servant"). This discovery process is the career of the Adept "below the Abyss". Roughly speaking, the discovery of the "Unconscious", or "genius", is the restructuring of activities of the moist robot, away from perpetuating its "virtual captain", to perpetuating itself, in a "healthy", integrated way. Practically speaking, it means taking into account the "still, small voice" of intuition, which represents all the machinery that was hitherto "repressed", jammed, truncated, etc., by living in service of, and perpetuating, shoring up, an illusion (the illusion that the "virtual captain" is real, to be perpetuated, etc.). All the machinery that was previously tied up with perpetuating the illusion, gets freed up to a) perpetuate the moist robot in a healthy, integrated way, and b) fulfil its (the whole organic machine's) "destiny", in the sense of doing what it's really, really good at (as opposed to what would be good to perpetuate the "virtual captain").
But there's more, it doesn't stop there: beyond that ("above the Abyss") the machine begins to see itself as an integral component of the Whole, and its conscious perception as the conscious perception of the Whole (I mean, the Whole's conscious perception of Itself) - and therefore, also, its "will" becomes the Will of the Whole, its own free movement is no longer understood as something separate from the Whole, but understood as a partner in a dance that completes the Whole.
And at that level, Free Will does exist: it is the will of the Whole, just the way things go, the Dao.
-
@Takamba said
"First of all, the premise of your entire quandary, Jason, is that you are taking the Harris argument as valid. For one, I'd have to read this work of Harris' myself to be able to give you a hand with that. For two, you didn't quote Harris to me, you quoted someone who was paraphrasing (interpreting for us) Harris' argument. Based on those two points I'm not going to approach anything about what Harris has or had to say on the subject."
Hi Takamba,
As always, thanks for the well said response. My apologies for not making it clear that the quote wasn't a direct quote of Harris. I have listened to Harris, and his arguments, and found this quote to be pretty close to what he said. For ease, I simply used that shortened quote that seemed to get across the point in less words.
Regardless, I feel you (and the others) have answered a lot of my confusion. It would seem that the idea is that no matter what may influence or originate the origin of an idea behind a thought, we are still choosing and so in alignment with the greater picture (i.e. Will). If I am correct in understanding everyone.
Seeing how you have mentioned Harris using a silly argument with unsound logic (regarding the desire for chocolate etc), I thought I may try to add a little more to that just in case. Listening to him give a talk about free will, he gives an exercise to try. He asks for anyone to think of anyone from their past. After doing so, he then asks the person to explain the reason or mechanics behind why they chose that particular person. According to him, they can't. His argument is that we are not aware of causes behind our choices, and so these choices we make are not of free will. Here is a video on YouTube that goes a bit more deep. Of course he explains it a lot better than I can.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRIcbsRXQ0o
I hate that I am not as articulate, and it is hard for me to put into words what I am trying to say. I apologize. I guess what I am trying to say is that if the causes of the choices we feel we are making (the illusion of free will) are not within our awareness, how can we hope to have control over doing our true will? That make any sense? What I am taking from everyone, is that this doesn't truly matter. That what choices we make, even if not freely chosen, is - for lack of a better term, guided. Since we are part of a larger mechanism, what chain of events occurs to bring us to some choice, is itself, part of our True Will?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"(I like a lot - most? all? of the answers so far. Adding...)
Yes, True Will has little or nothing to do with free will as usually expressed, and has almost nothing to do with a personality's choices.
Qabbalistically, Will is motion. True Will is the sum of all the vectors operative in a person's life. These vectors include biological restrictions, other resistances and restrictions in life, the social connections we hold onto and the considerations we place and attach to them, as well as all the empowerments, etc.
To understand it, look at it in nature: Look at erosion patterns down a hill, how gullies are carved. Given the conditions of gravity, water's molecular cohesion, etc., water at the top of a hill will make it to the bottom (unless it finds a natural stopping place such as a basin where it can pool; and then, given enough water, it still will overflow and move down, taking other water with it). When you look at how gullies are carved in soil you see the inevitability of water motion - what it in fact will do - interacting with harder and softer parts of the soil.
This is us moving through life; and by True Will we consider all of this - the water, the laws of gravity and molecular cohesion, the hard and soft parts of the soil, etc.
One can take this ride happily or unhappily. Thelema counsels taking it happily (joyously, ecstatically). This is rarely done by the personality taking the reins to force a direction. It is nearly always done by the personality discovering and acknowledging the true motion of a star through existence and then consciously conforming its choices to that actuality."
Thank you Jim. This does clear a bit up for me, and makes a lot more sense.
-
@gurugeorge said
"
Sam Harris is a great, great modern rationalist thinker and I love him to bits. His recent book Waking Up is quite amazing. Apart from being a top drawer rationalist, scientist and philosopher, he's done a lot of "seeking" with gurus in India and Tibet, culminating in his meeting one of the main Dzogchen guys and finishing it. His stance of persuading rationalists and atheists not to throw out the baby of meditation practices with the bathwater of religion (even though he's one of the main bathwater-thrower-outers of recent times) is very brave in the context of his rationalist fellows.
HOWEVER, on this matter of free-will, he's a bit off the mark. There's an extremely cogent response to his position by another great philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett (it shows you how honest a thinker Harris is that he's reprinted that critique on his own website here)."
Thank you for this informative reply. Yes, I agree, I really like what he has to say in a lot of areas. Especially his ideas regarding organized religions. I feel we need more people speaking out like this.
-
Hey Jason,
Thanks for bringing up one of my own current demons. I've been wrestling with this one for awhile and, despite all the arguments made above, keep coming back to the point of your quandary. Since I'm still "over there", let me throw into the pool the reasoning that gets me there to see if it adds anything.
It seems like every response above retains the concept of choice which, I think, is the crux of your own misgivings in the original post. It's this "choice" that I can't get behind either. Here's why. Despite Takamba's seemingly sensible description of the process of choosing whether to write or not to write, that process of "choice" is not something that we can isolate in the physical world. Take it down to the simplest levels of which we're aware and this becomes obvious. Introduce an oxygen molecule to 2 hydrogen molecules in the presence of a spark and those three molecules will split in half and re-bond to result in two water molecules. There is no "choice" involved here. The makeup of our universe -- otherwise known as the laws of physics -- determine that this will be the outcome. Pushing that further, there isn't even choice as to which hydrogen atoms the now free oxygen atoms will bond with: they will necessarily attract those closest in proximity.
This example is very close to Jim's gravitation example. There are immutable forces that define reality at every level. Right now, we have classified them as four distinct forces -- gravity, electro-magnetism, strong nuclear, & weak nuclear -- but as we've already found overlap between the nuclear forces and electro-magnetism at the extremes of the scales, it's not too much of a stretch to classify them all as different expressions of the same force. Attraction. This is what our universe is built on. The force of Attraction, sometimes referred to as Love. (insert obvious Liber L quote here)
gurugeorge's robot example is a really nice analogy except that it gives the robot "choice" which robots don't have. They have specific programming, based on questions of proximity and attraction, that guides them to "choose" whether to grab the yellow ball or the red ball. But this isn't a "choice" as we commonly use the term. This is the result of a mathematical equation based on data intake from the physical environment around them. It is more complex than the oxygen/hydrogen attraction, but it isn't any less determined.
This increase in complexity grows exponentially as we climb the evolutionary tree of life but, as far as I can tell, "choice", as we understand the term, is not something that actually exists. I can say that I chose to begin this sentence with an "I" rather than a "We" but, in actuality, an untold number of cause and effect transactions led to the chemical interactions in my brain which caused my fingers to hit those keys on the keyboard. The thing I think of as "I" is not somehow separate from that necessary chain.
HOWEVER...
It seems to me that the problem here is not that we are suddenly devoid of choice and free will -- capitalized or not -- but that we ever thought we had it in the first place. We have built up this conception of reality that somehow posits us as independent actors who could, somehow, have a "choice"-like effect on that stuff out there. It's this that gurugeorge points to when he suggests that the robot's inner deterministic machinery "is to some extent sealed off, and independent of the world machinery it's making choices against." But this is a construct of language not supported by physical reality: nothing is, in any way, sealed off. All is One. "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." The chemical reactions of the water molecules inside my brain follow exactly the same rules as the water molecules in the ocean.
It is this conception that there is any sort of separation which is at the heart of the illusion of Maya.
There's a great instruction from somewhere or other (I don't have it in front of me at the moment so you'll just have to trust me that it's not originally mine) that we don't have this thing commonly referred to as "free will" or "choice" as generally understood but that we have to act as if we do in order to do the Work effectively enough to alter our being enough to reach the point where we no longer need to believe that we have these things but can, instead, live in the free flowing Will of the universe. We need to make certain choices and choose certain paths in order to get us to the place where we can truly, honestly, viscerally know that "we" are not, in fact, choosing anything.
Up until a few months ago, all of this was an intellectual exercise for me which, based on the wording of your original post, it reads like it is for you as well (feel free to correct me if that's wrong). Recent meditations on the ubiquity of sunlight and starlight in everything we know and everything we are have helped to start pushing that out of the mental plane and into the visceral. Our minds are extremely complex "moist computers"; and just like computers, they rely on the deterministic laws of reality to continue bonding carbon atoms to oxygen atoms in order to effect the change of one neuro-transmitter into another as determined by some prior cause.
I'd have to agree with Harris on that point. We don't know where that choice came from because its ultimate cause predates us by billions of years... if there is an "ultimate cause" at all.
-
Gnosomai Emauton,
Hello! Wow, wonderful! I truly appreciate your post, because it put into words what I miserably couldn't! This is exactly what I was trying to say. I have been struggling with the same ideas, and I am glad to see it spelled out so perfectly. Thank you! Now I will go over it a few times and try to absorb it lol. Then re read everyone's posts and see what I am left with. My brain takes time to get to it all!
I truly appreciate everyone's input. I feel it really does help give food for thought and understanding the True Will in relation to Thelema.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Yes, True Will has little or nothing to do with free will as usually expressed, and has almost nothing to do with a personality's choices.
.....
One can take this ride happily or unhappily. Thelema counsels taking it happily (joyously, ecstatically). This is rarely done by the personality taking the reins to force a direction. It is nearly always done by the personality discovering and acknowledging the true motion of a star through existence and then consciously conforming its choices to that actuality."Agreed.
Well said, Jim.
Inri
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
gurugeorge's robot example is a really nice analogy except that it gives the robot "choice" which robots don't have. They have specific programming, based on questions of proximity and attraction, that guides them to "choose" whether to grab the yellow ball or the red ball. But this isn't a "choice" as we commonly use the term. This is the result of a mathematical equation based on data intake from the physical environment around them. It is more complex than the oxygen/hydrogen attraction, but it isn't any less determined."Wrt "programming" - both the robot and us are programmed to make some choice (selection among alternative possible actions), but the choice we make isn't itself programmed, even when it's the result of a deterministic process in the cognitive machinery. The difference is only in degree of sophistication (and of course in the not too distant future, we probably will be able to make robots that have equally sophisticated mechanisms as we do, and are conscious, deliberative, self-aware, etc.).
We simply have two types of deterministic mechanisms by which both the silicon robot and us meaty robots select between a range of possible things to do next. You can either call that process of selection "not real choice", or accept that "choice" is as good a word for both processes as any (and reserve the scare quotes for the less sophisticated form of selection). It's actually just semantics: in both cases, the process of selection from alternatives is a real process, which is deterministic within itself, in which the selection isn't determined by the world (the world outside the "skin boundary" of the entity), but by the cognitive machinery of the entity.
This is compatibilism: yes, both the goings-on in the world outside the selecting entity, and the goings-on inside the cognitive machinery of the entity, are determined, but they are different kinds and levels of determinism that are involved, and the one bundle of exquisitely fine deterministic goings-on (the cognitive machinery) can help the selecting entity avoid certain larger, cruder forms of determinism, such as bricks aimed at their cognitive machinery. Whether the selection is made to duck or not to duck, it will be a deterministic process that makes the selection; whether the brick hits the cognitive machinery or not, it will be a deterministic process either way. Either the entity will duck or not, either the brick will hit or not (fatalism) and given omniscient knowledge of conditions, of both the world state and the cognitive machinery state, we would know which will happen (determinism). But neither we, nor the entity, have such knowledge - we (and the entity) can only make an estimate, using our respective cognitive machineries (which are deterministic processes), based on scant knowledge.
-
I would agree with you that it is semantics but I'd say that it's exactly those semantics that are at the heart of this issue. I didn't intend my quotes to be of the scary variety but simply to highlight a word for which we have a general definition in English that I don't see as realistically defensible.
To expand on your example:
@gurugeorge said
"Wrt "programming" - both the robot and us are programmed to make some choice (selection among alternative possible actions), but the choice we make isn't itself programmed, even when it's the result of a deterministic process in the cognitive machinery."
I don't see this statement as fully supported by reality, except as a semantic spook. Let's say we have a robot that is programmed to select a red ball from a bin of red and yellow balls. Semantically, there is some truth in the statement: "The robot chooses a red ball." However, though we've simplified the English description to, "the robot is programmed to select a red ball," there is actually more going on in the programming. Most robots are programmed to perform at peak efficiency so most robots will be programmed to select the first red ball their sensors hit. But perhaps, for fun, our robot has been programmed to select the third one it senses. Or to separate all of the balls into two piles based on color and then to filter through all the red ones until it finds the heaviest. Whatever the criteria in its finer levels of programming, the specific red ball that it is going to "choose" out of the bin is not a "choice" as is commonly meant in English but is, rather, the result of a mathematical equation of unassailable exactitude.
"But wait," I hear a voice in the back of the room yell out, "the robot has no control or influence on how the balls were originally arranged in the bin. Surely that level of external randomness influences this transaction in some way. This might lead the robot to choose the red granite ball rather than the red plastic ball because random chance placed the granite ball at the top of the heap."
Alas, as is demonstrated by Jim's example of water running down a hillside and mine of the unification of oxygen and hydrogen, these processes are equally determined by the laws of nature and follow equally programmed rules.
On my own thread exploring these issues, you said the following and I found it to be right on the mark:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13996&p=96586#p96586">viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13996&p=96586#p96586</a><!-- l -->
@gurugeorge said
"UNLESS the internal magical theory is correct and there are ways, as-yet-uncanvassed-by-science, but known as a rough and ready art by magicians, to influence or alter determinism as we know it. As I'm in a rationalist phase, I doubt the possibility of that, but even if it were the case, I don't see how that wouldn't be just a deeper understanding of determinism really, still some kind of law-governed flowing of stuff, those "laws" being as above said, a description of the stuff's free wandering (looked at from a higher point of view)."
This thing we call choice is a semantic construct. It's something our minds, as programmed by language, convince us we have the ability to do but, really, it's just describing the results of deterministic processes. And, when I use that term, I understand it to mean processes that are programmed by the laws of physics. Unless, as you say above, there is a way to step outside of the laws of physics in order to perturb them, I don't see any way to support the belief that we can make choices that aren't necessary effects of prior causes. In contrast to your "the process of selection from alternatives is a real process, which is deterministic within itself, in which the selection isn't determined by the world (the world outside the "skin boundary" of the entity), but by the cognitive machinery of the entity," I would say that the selection is determined by the world both inside and outside the skin boundary because that boundary is just as much a construct as anything else that language has created.
Your final line above sums it up very nicely and succinctly. We can only make estimates based on scant knowledge. It is our storytelling about those estimates which we call "choice". It is the realization that we don't actually have the volition that we've always thought we have but that we are, in fact, stars progressing along our necessary course, following our True Will, in alignment with The True Will because there is no other way for us to be, that dissolves the veils of Maya and unites us, consciously, with the Universal Will.
I think.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Let's say we have a robot that is programmed to select a red ball from a bin of red and yellow balls. Semantically, there is some truth in the statement: "The robot chooses a red ball." However, though we've simplified the English description to, "the robot is programmed to select a red ball," [...] "
No we haven't - well, it depends on the relative sophistication of the programming.
Suppose a chess computer beats a player with a specific move x. The computer was programmed to "play chess", it was programmed to "win at chess"; but was it, in being so programmed, programmed to make that specific move x at that specific time? (Was it necessary, for it to be true to say the program was programmed to "play chess", that every move it makes be programmed by an external entity, i.e. the programmer?)
Clearly, the programmer had no such specific goal in mind as "on Tuesday, 11th August, you will make move x in the game of chess vs. Ms so-and-so, thereby fulfilling the goal of your programming and beating her".
Now, obviously there's a range of sophistication possible here: at one end, simple programming, look-up tables, etc., at the other end, the extreme sophistication of entities like us (and the robots we'll be able to create) which can think for themselves, "on the hoof", as it were. The difference is in the modelling - the better and more sophisticated the world/self model, the more it can be said that any given move is a choice arising out of the merits and demerits of that model, and not out of any "canned" response. (Think of videogames - previously, the death throes of an monster would be programmed as a small, fixed sprite animation, nowadays, there is physics programming, which models the impact of your bullet on the monster, and makes it behave more a real monster might under the same circumstances; different each time.)
So it's the same with the determinism (programming) that drives us. We are programmed, determined, to "make the best selection out of possible options that we can", based on scant knowledge. But that's an abstract, high level description (like "programmed to play chess"). That doesn't mean specific action x at specific time y is programmed into us (determined) - **even though the machinery that makes the selection is deterministic machinery. **
The machine still has to make *its own *calculation, and make its own move - its own choice, and the action it makes based on its calculation is the action that drives its motion, its motion is not driven by any external source, nor by any particular example of determinism, other than the internal deterministic process of the cognitive machinery. And beyond some relevant threshold of sophistication, it really is choice, and not "choice". i.e. it's not something cute that merely looks like it's an on-the-hoof calculation by the robot, but is actually more specifically programmed - it genuinely is an on-the-hoof calculation by the robot, and the choice it makes might be something totally un-envisaged by the programmer. Progress in robotics is partly a balancing act between keeping the machine under control and keeping it independent enough of the programmer's control that it can still make good decisions under its own steam.
Yes, these processes depend on mathematics and on the relatively stable rule-following of nature (e.g. the substance of which the thing is composed), but that doesn't mean that those processes are reaching past your own decision making process and making your every move for you, any more than the programmer who programs the computer to "play chess" is thereby reaching through the computer's decisions and making it make x specific move on y specific day.
Perhaps another way of looking at it would be this: real choice, real freedom, are things that make sense in a context of other entities potentially being able to control your actions. It is my choice as opposed to the guy with the gun pointed at my head, that I do x.
It seemed like this merely "economic" or "social" sense of freedom wasn't enough - and it certainly wouldn't be enough to ground any of those sorts of highfalutin' senses of "Free Will" and "Freedom" and "Choice" that are not measured against potential opposition, potential other-control. But actually, on the contrary, there is no such kind of Free Will, Choice, etc., but there is free will, choice, etc., which stand as terms relative to other entities, whether the chooser is being buffeted around by other entities, or controlled by other entities: this is the only sense in which the term does have meaning and isn't just free-wheeling semantics.
-
First off, I just want to say that I'm loving this discussion. Every time I delve into the mindspace to grapple with new information from another response, it tickles just the right sections of the amygdalae.
@gurugeorge said
"Suppose a chess computer beats a player with a specific move x. The computer was programmed to "play chess", it was programmed to "win at chess"; but was it, in being so programmed, programmed to make that specific move x at that specific time? (Was it necessary, for it to be true to say the program was programmed to "play chess", that every move it makes be programmed by an external entity, i.e. the programmer?)"
No, looked at that way, it wasn't programmed to make that specific move at that specific time, but setting that as your metric for proof misses what programming is and how it can be used as an analogy for reality. Because the computer is programmed to "win at chess", if it encounters a board with an option for checkmate, it will make that move. Likewise, if it is presented with a board with a possibility to checkmate in two, it will make that move. Extend this process backward along the cause-effect chain and you'll start to see how we arrive at a particular move at a particular moment in time.
If we set a computer against a person, we as observers won't be able to predict the end of the game because we, as observers, don't have the means to know the person's programming. However, if we set two computers to play against each other, we could do just that. This would not, however, be as simple as knowing the particular algorithm that each computer is using to evaluate the board in order to select its next move, it would also require knowing what means it is using to run its "random number generator" - which is never random, just highly complex. Also, we'd need to know how many moves ahead each of them are programmed to look in their evaluation of the best current move. We'd need to know their processing power and memory capacity and ambient temperature in order to calculate the time they would require to process each move.
All of these -- and many more -- though not coded as binary either-or decisions by the programmer, are a part of the computer's programming. Even the choice of which computer to set it against as its opponent is a question of programming. If we were able to feed all of these variables into an even larger computer, that computer could calculate for us exactly which moves would be made by both of our competing computers and precisely the time it would take each of them to do it.
Looked at that way, the answer becomes: Yes, the computer was programmed in such a way that it would make that specific move at that specific time.
"Clearly, the programmer had no such specific goal in mind as "on Tuesday, 11th August, you will make move x in the game of chess vs. Ms so-and-so, thereby fulfilling the goal of your programming and beating her"."
Clearly. Nor did the universe need to have it in mind that, at 3:09pm on Sunday, September 6th, a spark would be introduced to a vessel of O2 and H2 thus causing oxygen atom "Ollie" to attract hydrogen atoms "Harriet" and "Harry" into the holy threesome we call a water molecule. Nonetheless, the programming of the universe dictates that, when that spark was fired and Ollie was torn from his brother Omar in the electric armageddon, he would necessarily hook up with the two hydrogen atoms in closest proximity.
"Now, obviously there's a range of sophistication possible here: at one end, simple programming, look-up tables, etc., at the other end, the extreme sophistication of entities like us (and the robots we'll be able to create) which can think for themselves, "on the hoof", as it were."
This appears to be where our models differ. If I'm reading you correctly, you envision some invisible line, on our side of which we can "think for ourselves", and on the other side of which transactions between two discrete bits of reality are dictated by simple programming. Obviously there are gradations along the way but, ultimately, this model requires some line where volition enters into the equation. That line is usually drawn between humans and everything else but I don't find that presumption to be tenable.
Where I see a problem with this is that I see the fundamental level of programming of all of reality affecting every bit of the All equally. From Above to Below and back again, every bit of universe, of Ain Soph, of Maya, of Prana, of Tao, of Prima Materia, of Whatever; every bit of it must follow this fundamental level of programming and at every level, no matter how sophisticated it appears to us, every action can be distilled back to that fundamental level of programming.
The human mind-body matrix is massively complex and constantly changing as new atoms are added to replace others that have fallen away. Even if it weren't, by definition we can never know the complete contents of our own mind because that knowledge would have to somehow fit within our mind which would expand the boundaries, etc. etc. But we can analyze the world around us and, following the hermetic law of correspondence, apply our observations to the thing that is too big for us to wrap our minds around. If we start at the level of the water molecule and slowly work our way up the ladder of complexity -- first to crystals, then to organic molecules, then DNA, then cellular life -- can we find a point where the law of attraction displayed by the water molecule is over-ridden by volition? Or do we instead see that, as more and more of those individual expressions of attraction occur in a system, it becomes too much for our observer brains to track and so we label it as this free-flowing thing called "life" which looks to us to make choices based on its surroundings when, in fact, each individual point within the mass is as deterministically programmed to do what its doing as the individual oxygen atom was?
Before we've even reached multi-celled organisms, the systems are too complex for us to process. However, by looking at the fundamentals we can see that the binary programming at the base level is what's causing the results we witness. Conway's Game of Life gives us a beautiful demonstration of this.
"Yes, these processes depend on mathematics and on the relatively stable rule-following of nature (e.g. the substance of which the thing is composed), but that doesn't mean that those processes are reaching past your own decision making process and making your every move for you, any more than the programmer who programs the computer to "play chess" is thereby reaching through the computer's decisions and making it make x specific move on y specific day."
I'd go a step farther. I'd say that nature is, by definition, exactly stable at mathematics. It never fails. Mathematics is the programming. There aren't decisions to make; there is only one eternal equation that is solving itself.
"Perhaps another way of looking at it would be this: real choice, real freedom, are things that make sense in a context of other entities potentially being able to control your actions. It is my choice as opposed to the guy with the gun pointed at my head, that I do x."
Within that context, I'd agree. And I'd guess that that's what the quote I vaguely remembered about acting as if we have free will is pointing towards (it was Paul Foster Case as well, btw). But it seems to me that that context is the veil of illusion that we are attempting to wipe away. That it is getting to the other side of that belief that my choice is somehow separate from the guy with the gun that is the work. Unite subject and object (self and gun-threat) until both disappear.
-
Great discussion, haven't read through all of the replies yet so I may be stating something someone else already noted. Free Will of the materialists and True Will of Thelema are not necessarily trying to occupy the same philosophical space. They are entirely different concepts. 'True Will' implies a universal intention expressed at the level of the atomic - and is teleological. It does not need a 'free will' for it to exist, nor does it even need a choice between a 'true will' and a 'false will' for it to be 'free will'.
Its not compatible in any way with the 'free will' concept used by materialists to try and debunk dualistic models of consciousness which it inherited from Christianity and Judaism and the choice between Good and evil.
Crowley compared true will as the equivalency of bidding the stars to shine, for it is their will to shine light. In this regard, stars of no no choice but to do their will. They do not choose between shining light and say, baking donuts or weaving baskets.
Free will as used by Sam Harris is also a philosophically unusable idea inherent with its own flaws. Even Dan Dennett chief architect of the materialist argument refutes materialists who trash on free will. www.samharris.org/blog/item/reflections-on-free-will
Sam Harris , as articulate and intelligent as he is - is still fundamentally assuming the brain is the generator of consciousness and he remains philosophically consistent with that idea, including the dismissal of free will altogether.
So even if Harris is closer to true about free will and the brain, it does not contradict or refute philosophical thelema on will at all, for easily we could say that, yes, we are purely robotic mindless robots with an illusion of free will and choice until we discover our true will, and do nothing but that.
Cheers!
-
I really enjoy this, you all have some great insights.
It has been my idea for a while now, that everyone is doing their True Will. Is it correct then to say that it is impossible to not accomplish one's True Will? What about the "Black Brothers", and the cat of slime of the Abyss?
If one fails, was that their True Will? This is the part where I am confused. It would seem to me that the Book of the Law, and the idea behind Thelema is to liberate the individual, to give them freedom, and to enlighten etc etc. If we cannot help where we are pulled along by this greater Will, then how can we ever say anyone has failed? This is why I assume the BOTL says "There is success". Likewise, how about those that the book warns against? For example the fill/kill debate? All these start to become sort of lost in the shuffle of we are all just going along, and so why the worry?
-
This is just what my Lotus is telling me since I live without nourishment from my peers. Nor do I have any experience besides my own experiences. I have a novice and second-hand understanding of the labels and debates.
Discussion is also part of Will. I know there is a danger of confusing external and internal, but it can't be helped, part of the process. Wrong or Right each side should learn something. Whatever takes you to the next step of understanding (Light) I suppose. Which is the point of debate in the mind or with others. More like wrestling than worrying. The Free Will/Fate debate is just another of these wranglings. It may be that we are biologically bound to fate but we will resist admitting it until the very end...
Why not?Ultimately the question isn't why we debate with others but about the specifics on why we debate with ourselves. This has been an interesting discussion.
True Will is more of your Will after you get most of your impurities together and balanced (removing personal restraints). Which takes devotion and thorough analysis of personal Karma. If a person isn't close enough to this point then they would fall back to cast blame on some other thing or person ect. until the next alignment can occur. So Will and True Will are just a matter of adeptship.
Would it be true to say that Black Brothers have a major fear based blind that also the external environment and others around them would support? And that such would be necessary in certain circumstances, just like Severity is for the Work. Every possibility in the universe has a certain utility along the line.
Thank you as always.
-
@Jason R said
"I really enjoy this, you all have some great insights.
It has been my idea for a while now, that everyone is doing their True Will. Is it correct then to say that it is impossible to not accomplish one's True Will? What about the "Black Brothers", and the cat of slime of the Abyss?
"I'm not sure if 'doing one's true will' and being aware of one's true will are the same. I could see that someone with relatively poor levels of awareness or corrupted ideas could be fooled by nothing more than their own magick.
If one becomes aware of the 'continuity of existence' - then ultimately yes our true will is the continuity of existence so yes we are all performing our true wills - and if one finds themselves spending an aeon or two in a pile of sludge because they deluded themselves to their own intentions that does not circumvent their own true will to exist.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Jason R said
"I really enjoy this, you all have some great insights.It has been my idea for a while now, that everyone is doing their True Will. Is it correct then to say that it is impossible to not accomplish one's True Will? What about the "Black Brothers", and the cat of slime of the Abyss?
"I'm not sure if 'doing one's true will' and being aware of one's true will are the same. I could see that someone with relatively poor levels of awareness or corrupted ideas could be fooled by nothing more than their own magick.
If one becomes aware of the 'continuity of existence' - then ultimately yes our true will is the continuity of existence so yes we are all performing our true wills - and if one finds themselves spending an aeon or two in a pile of sludge because they deluded themselves to their own intentions that does not circumvent their own true will to exist."
I am still not sure, after going over this a while now, if it makes sense.
I think it is pretty evident that we honestly have no true control over the source of our conscious thoughts. This can be demonstrated by trying to explain the process behind any random thought, and how one arrived at it. If this is the case, saying things like "...they deluded themselves" doesn't make sense - because obviously you have no choice in the matter. You either are deluded beyond your control or not. Therefore, the idea that one can consciously, and willfully take up the Great Work, and succeed - has to be false. If you succeed, it wasn't truly because of your conscious choice, and if you fail, well - it wasn't under your control as well.
If we simply look around at various people we meet, or those around the world, I think it is painfully obvious that some simply would never be able to do this work, even if they did have true free will. In the end, the only conclusion I can see, is that everyone is simply flowing along this river called life, and moving according to some grand picture, without any possible control whatsoever. The only real control is something that is much higher perhaps and not at all personal.
Those who achieve any type of self mastery or 'True Will' - do so because something greater pushed them there. Or, perhaps there is no personal True Will at all. Maybe the BOL is simply one declaration, that tells us what is happening, that we are "to do" "Thou" "Will" period. We all MUST do it, and never fail at doing it. The task of finding this is an illusion, and some simply are a part of a current beyond their choosing that takes them down this Thelemic road.
-
@Jason R said
"Those who achieve any type of self mastery or 'True Will' - do so because something greater pushed them there."
More or less repeating: the something greater is that which we truly are.
You're seeing things from the bottom-up, but it's top-down. (Or, if you prefer, you're seeing it from outside-in, but it's from the inside-out.)