Free Will and determinism and...

[meatshoe]

...several other 'isms I don't think they have words for yet:

Embrace the Horror! (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/horror.html)

Just thinking about this gave me a splitting headache.

[CaptainBubba]

Why?

The autonomous universe argument is nothing new and generally anyone can come to that conclusion on their own with enough rational thought. When I was 12 I realized that if I rewound time and "played" it again everything would either be the same or different. If its the same then everything is predetermined. If its different then everything is random. Either way it disproves free will. Come on.

Its not very complex and really its not horrible at all. Its the one saving grace I have for immortality of some nature since it suggests my conciousness could somehow be kept in tact since it is after all just a collection of atoms. I have no idea how but hey it gives me hope.

[The One and Only...]

If its the same then everything is predetermined. If its different then everything is random.

Not necessarily. Things could occur in exactly the same way by a random process.

[CaptainBubba]

Go fuck yourself.

[sspadowsky]

This became boring before I even finished reading the thread title.

[The One and Only...]

Go fuck yourself.

So if you wrap your universe-blasting penis around yourself enough times, can you suck the head?

[Sethomas]

Things could occur in exactly the same way by a random process.

Okay, let's look at it this way. Let's say a typical atom faces 100,000 orbital shifts a second with a 50/50 chance probability. What is .5^100,000? I fucking small number. That's one second, and there is something like 10^35 atoms on the earth. What do you think the odds are that everything will churn out the same way twice?

So, no, your idea is so stupid it hurts. Fortunately, I'm a determinist.

[The One and Only...]

I never said it was likely, I said it was possible.

Plus, you need to go far more fundamentally than atoms or physics.

[Sethomas]

It's not impossible that I could quantum barrier tunnel from Bloomington, IN into Elsa Zylberstein's bedroom, but given the raw probability of it all, it's rationally equivalent to impossible. So, you're still pretty much wrong on all counts.

Sure, go beyond atoms to quarks. But what exactly do you mean about going beyond physics? The whole point of it is that the only thing beyond physics--the most elementary science--is God, should it exist.

[Rosenstern]

Battle of the Pipe Suckers '05! Yeah, Bitches!

[CaptainBubba]

More importantly its irrelevant if by a random process you arrived at the same results because the point I'm making is in the processes available to logic. You still only have two possible natures of reality. All OAO is pointing out is a very very asinine mathematical technicality. I can only assume his motivations stem from believing there is a soul who reads these messageboards and will think better of him for pointing it out.

Also, man, thanks for pointing out again how ridiculous I'm being with that penis thread. I dunno what I was thinking man. Its not really that big. ;)

[ArrowX]

Hey guys the Universe is Horro....HEY I CAN FIND MY GRADUATING CLASS!

[kellychaos]

big penis threads :lol

[kahljorn]

The whole point of it is that the only thing beyond physics--the most elementary science--is God

:pirate

[The One and Only...]

Metaphysics, Seth.

[CaptainBubba]

Mind giving me a brief synopsis of how "metaphysics" work again OAO? Since you must be so well versed in its mechanics seeing as how you expect Seth to factor them in.

[Rosenstern]

That story changed my life! Thanks goodness I'm totally limited to what chemical processes that started at the Big Bang and have continued since have in store for me! Ya know what?! I'm gonna go commit mass killings and rapes, wipe off my knife and dick, and then blame it all on chemical processes. Yeah!

[CaptainBubba]

I thought you said "wipe my knife off with my dick" at first and I was like, "cool!", but then I re-read it and I was like, "awwww". :(

[Rosenstern]

Imagine how amused you'll be when you are but a lifeless collection of atoms and compounds fallen from my blade, ready to continue your journey you started at the ALMIGHTY BIG BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(translation:"FUCK DETERMINISM")

[Sethomas]

Well, what's your alternative to determinism? A soul based on quantum probability? "Who would want free will if it were nothing more than an internal coin-flip?"-Daniel Wegner.

And sorry OAO, I can't believe I confused theology and metaphysics. Those are like, way different.

[CaptainBubba]

Determinism doesn't alleviate social and biological responsibility. Its basically a pointless bit of truth. One of those philosophical properties of existence that only matter when your gross pothead friend decides hes smart and mumbles incoherently about it for 10 seconds before falling face first into a steel railing.

Using determinism as a reason to pursue hedonistic activities is not a logical argument. Because determinism means there is a single autonomous chain of events,any action taken against your pursuit of killing people or whatever it is you youngins get kicks out of these days also falls into this chain of events.

In other words, understanding determinism and realizing it is most likely the truth, doesnt change anything.

[ziggytrix]

You'll never know the answer and talking all pedantic does not impress the ladies!! Focus on what your life is, not the how or the why!

And buy my motivational series: <link deleted spammar whore!> only $9.95 per tape.

[Dr. Boogie]

This became boring before I even finished reading the thread title.

Agreed. The only time I've been able to listen to the debate over free will vs. determinism is when it's in "Legacy of Kain" format, and even that had vampires and bloody explosions.

[kellychaos]

Seeing as the 50-50 shots will all culminate in an result that is rougly similiar in the end, does that leave us with an inifinite number of parallel coin-flips vying for the finish of the race?

[Sethomas]

Umm. No. Sure, electrons don't have much sway in global politics. But think of polar attractions between ova and spermazoids. Say Hitler got a different zygote, can you imagine history being any different in the least? It's a huge nature versus nurture argument, but I think it wins.

[The One and Only...]

Mind giving me a brief synopsis of how "metaphysics" work again OAO? Since you must be so well versed in its mechanics seeing as how you expect Seth to factor them in.

I don't have to, since that would be irrelevant to the point.

[Sethomas]

Metaphysics are irrrelevant. Bravo! Now shut the fuck up.

[Preechr]

Free will is only the human ability to defy the will of God.

Free will means we get to screw things up.

[The One and Only...]

Metaphysics are irrrelevant.

No, how it works is irrelevant to the point I was making.

[kellychaos]

Can there be a comprimise? Determinism in the broad sense with free will left to fill in the details without necessarily changing the end result?

[CaptainBubba]

Free will doesn't mean anything, so no.

If by free will you mean the ability to defy god than its simply a fictional construct of our abstract reasoning with regards to a deity. To me that means it doesn't mean anything. There are no gaps in detail with determinism. Its very simple.

[Preechr]

Predetermined events need not exist.

I am using "God" in the most abstract sense possible. Whether or not you're deterministic or not, you probably believe your actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value. The sum of your and everyone else's actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value. That universal value, positive or negative, is the will of whatever is responsible for our existence, whether or not we are in fact are responsible for our own actions.

That which has a beginning had a cause, so unless you wish to argue off on a tangent whether the big bang happened (which is possible, but do it with Seth,) the universe exists because of something. Something with a will? The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.

That being said, I believe there is a purpose and therefore a will behind our existence. We have the ability to thwart that will with our own decisions. Were we to act as that will intended, we would be serving that will, which is of higher order than our own, so our actions would be of that will.

The only time we can be said to be expressing our "free" will is when we are doing that which is not serving our purpose in existence. When we defy God. When we act as God intended, we are serving, not defying God, and then our actions are of God not of us.

[kellychaos]

Accepting that premise would free will then be evil ... the Devil's work?

[Preechr]

Man... That's a weird question. Not that it's weird itself, but I'm not sure how to start talking about a Devil in this context. I think there is no evil but in the actions of man, and so if your concept of the Devil is the source of all evil, then yes.

Is it, however, evil for us to have free will? No. We would be irrelevant any other way. Thus, evil serves the eventual good? Only if we learn the value of good by doing bad.

[kellychaos]

I meant evil in the sense that it foils (in your terms, has a negative value) the intended purpose you discussed. Wouldn't these misteps of free will, then, send back "the plan" a few milli-clicks?

[Preechr]

Well, to skip to the end, I believe we are here to accept the plan as the only way to exist, but by our own choice. The purpose of life is to be happy, and if you want to call it serving God or following the plan or whatever, then that is the path to being happy. Excercising free will is the path to unhappiness, but it's not all as dreary as that. Living life right is it's own reward and all that...

As I said, existence would be pointless without free will, so the length of existence is related to our reliance on doing things wrong.

[Brandon]

The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.
That kind of rests on the assumption that "complex" life has some sort of intrinsic value, though. In the "eyes" of the universe, we're no different than other masses of quarks. We just happen to be a more elaborate random occurrence than others.

We arose as a result of the "perfect" order of this planet, rather than the planet being perfectly ordered for us. It took a lot of trial and error in the evolutionary process for us to reach this state.

[kellychaos]

Why would we be a separate entity whose ordering did not follow the ordering of the planet and whose ordering is distinct from the planet? We are just as much a part of the evolution of the planet as the planet itself. If we end, the planet will not necessarily end. If the planet ends, we will end.

Note slipped under a door: we're not all THAT important.

[Sethomas]

OAO: The quintessence of metaphysical study is theology. God is the defining facet of theology. So, you're dumb.

Everyone should be coeternalists. That is all.

[Preechr]

Note slipped under a door: we're not all THAT important.

That's one way of looking at it. Scientific fallacies always rest on assumptions, and I sometimes wonder if one day we'll look back on the science we've rested on the idea that we're insignificant and laugh.

The popular assumption that we're "not alone" in the universe is just one possiblity on an equal footing as it's alternatives until actual proof exists. Psychologically, the popular assumption could be considered to be as popular as it is because believing this way makes us feel very safe. It's nice to be just a speck who's actions mean nothing in the universal view.

What if the alternative were true. What if the entire universe had to exist just to support the tiny little part of it that allows our existence? What if our individual actions really do matter? What if we are necessary to the cosmos? What if we are it's purpose?

In science, all alternatives are equal until undisputable proof has been accumulated that proves beyond any doubt that one scenario explains ALL the observed data. You may have a gut reaction that tells you my scenario is wrong, but it's possible that's a product of all the psychological protections you've constructed to help you feel better about your existence.

I like my way better.

[CaptainBubba]

Whether or not you're deterministic or not, you probably believe your actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value.

No. "Meaning" and "value" are abstract human concepts and eman nothing in the context of this coversation.

The sum of your and everyone else's actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value. That universal value, positive or negative, is the will of whatever is responsible for our existence, whether or not we are in fact are responsible for our own actions.

You are just making stuff up.

That which has a beginning had a cause, so unless you wish to argue off on a tangent whether the big bang happened (which is possible, but do it with Seth,) the universe exists because of something.

Again, you are simply saying things you wish to be true then going "because its so".

Something with a will? The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.

This reasoning makes no logical sense. I will steal an idea from Voltaire is you don't mind to illustrate the ridiculousness of what you've just said. Pants fit perfectly around my legs. Thusly I can conclude that legs were formed by god to fit into pants.

That being said, I believe there is a purpose and therefore a will behind our existence. We have the ability to thwart that will with our own decisions. Were we to act as that will intended, we would be serving that will, which is of higher order than our own, so our actions would be of that will.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. You've completely ignored everything we've been arguing about or it is simply way past your level of understanding. Sorry if I sound mean but this is so awfully ignorant in the context of our argument that it might make me a bit harsh. You just sound like someone who is so deeply dependent upon religious doctrine that engaging in a conversation about this is pointless because you do not even bother to let your mind digest ideas different than what you currently believe.

The only time we can be said to be expressing our "free" will is when we are doing that which is not serving our purpose in existence. When we defy God. When we act as God intended, we are serving, not defying God, and then our actions are of God not of us.

Religion is a baseless science and is unarguable. I dont argue with religion because its like arguing that an invisble pink dragon that exists beyond all my senses lives in your garage. Pointless.


Really I understand why its important to you to believe there is purpose to your existence and everything. All I can say is I'm sorry. In truth its not that bad. If you just don't think about it, life can be fun. Most philosophical truths are like that.

[pjalne]

In science, all alternatives are equal until undisputable proof has been accumulated that proves beyond any doubt that one scenario explains ALL the observed data.

Not really. In science, nothing can really be proven, it can just be presented as so likely that it would be counterproductive (and sometimes downright stupid) not to assume it is correct. Like the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Which IS a theory. It's just so well documented only nuts would dispute it.

And all alternatives aren't equal. In a crime case, you might be innocent until proven guilty, but in science, your notions are worthless until you are able to present an alternative model that can explain a phenomenon more coherently than the currently leading theory.

EDIT:

Something with a will? The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.

But see, it's not random. If we take evolution as an example, the actual changes of traits might be random, at least as random as they can be when based on preexisting DNA structure. But the survival of these new traits is anything BUT random. This new trait has to answer to a preexisting environment, and if it doesn't make the cut, it goes away.

[Preechr]

Man... That's a lot to which to reply...

[Preechr]

No. "Meaning" and "value" are abstract human concepts and eman nothing in the context of this coversation.

The context of this conversation is a discussion of free will vs. determinism. It is a discussion of decisions and where the responsibility for those decisions lie. Most of my input in this thread has been simple logic, mixed with a little speculation. Meaning and value are very important ethical considerations, and a discussion of responsibilty for decisions is nothing if not one including ethics.

The sum of your and everyone else's actions and existence have some sort of meaning or value. That universal value, positive or negative, is the will of whatever is responsible for our existence, whether or not we are in fact are responsible for our own actions.

You are just making stuff up.

Speculation based on the grounds of the prior point. Arguable, but not invalid.

That which has a beginning had a cause, so unless you wish to argue off on a tangent whether the big bang happened (which is possible, but do it with Seth,) the universe exists because of something.

Again, you are simply saying things you wish to be true then going "because its so".

To be fair, I'll give you a link to an article that attempts to disprove something called the Kalam argument. It's just more simple logic.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/greg_scorzo/kalam.html

In short, if I bang on a table, I am the cause of that sound. It simply did not exist before I caused it. There is much, much more to be said using that simple example. It's an entire discussion in and of itself, and it's just some idiot banging on a table.

I will steal an idea from Voltaire is you don't mind to illustrate the ridiculousness of what you've just said. Pants fit perfectly around my legs. Thusly I can conclude that legs were formed by god to fit into pants.

If God made your pants, not some guy, then you might have a point.

In the spirit of being a victim of i-mockery and not one of it's regulars, I'm gonna move on.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. You've completely ignored everything we've been arguing about or it is simply way past your level of understanding. Sorry if I sound mean but this is so awfully ignorant in the context of our argument that it might make me a bit harsh. You just sound like someone who is so deeply dependent upon religious doctrine that engaging in a conversation about this is pointless because you do not even bother to let your mind digest ideas different than what you currently believe.

You know nothing of my personal religious beliefs or my religious background, so I'm gonna write that off to speculation of your own, to which you are as allowed as I am.

I'm not, however, going to make the same mistake as you have and speculate on your life and your motivations for saying what you do.

Sorry if that's not mean enough.

Religion is a baseless science and is unarguable. I dont argue with religion because its like arguing that an invisble pink dragon that exists beyond all my senses lives in your garage. Pointless.

That was funny. I don't argue with religion, either. I don't even argue religion with people. I think it's great for those that need it, and that it probably serves society well in general... at least maybe better than it's absence would.

Really I understand why its important to you to believe there is purpose to your existence and everything. All I can say is I'm sorry. In truth its not that bad. If you just don't think about it, life can be fun. Most philosophical truths are like that.

That's as valid an opinion as any other. I hope it serves you well.

[Preechr]

In science, nothing can really be proven, it can just be presented as so likely that it would be counterproductive (and sometimes downright stupid) not to assume it is correct. Like the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. Which IS a theory. It's just so well documented only nuts would dispute it.

I'm pretty sure there's a reason why scientists make distinction between scientific laws and theories. I'm equally sure science is not based on assumptions. Scientific research, maybe.

Maybe you're more up to date on science than am I. Either way, my comment is unaffected by your addition.

And all alternatives aren't equal. In a crime case, you might be innocent until proven guilty, but in science, your notions are worthless until you are able to present an alternative model that can explain a phenomenon more coherently than the currently leading theory.

It's bad science to fail to question any theory because of a popular assumption. That's always been the case. In the absence of irrefutable proof, all alternative theories should be considered. All I'm doing is describing one alternative and considering the possible bias behind the popularity of the "currently leading theory."

But see, it's not random. If we take evolution as an example, the actual changes of traits might be random, at least as random as they can be when based on preexisting DNA structure. But the survival of these new traits is anything BUT random. This new trait has to answer to a preexisting environment, and if it doesn't make the cut, it goes away.

I was addressing the idea that all events are random. I don't like that concept any more than you do, but for different reasons.

I don't like Darwinian evolution, either, but that's an entirely different discussion...

[ziggytrix]

I'm pretty sure there's a reason why scientists make distinction between scientific laws and theories. I'm equally sure science is not based on assumptions. Scientific research, maybe.

The distinction between law and theory is very subtle, and even a law is subject to being disproven, in light of some evidence that would presumably shock the entire scientific community. Make sure you are not confusing theory and hypothesis, though, as the disctinction between those is very clear.

Why are we talking about the scientific method?

[Preechr]

CaptainBubba, I'm not trying to attack you here, but I'm not going to accept your label of my comments as invalid just because you say it's so.

I'm no more of a real preacher than you are a captain (unless you really are...) Please note the points where I used words like "God" conditionally. The main belief of my own I've tried to express here is that I believe we are able to think of ourselves as more than just anomalies or abcesses in nature. I believe human existence is important because we can look around and see that all things are important, even if we don't currently understand how it all works together.

Factor our inherent importance in with our unique capabilities within nature, and I simply doubt the idea that the products of those capabilities, our actions, are irrelevant to nature. We can argue whether nature has a cause and or purpose, but argument implies, at least if it is to be constructive, logical progressions. I've tried to remain constructive.

If you want to attack my logic, go right ahead. Keep in mind that your possibly too quick discounting of my posts might be allowing me to "talk over your head," but more because you're not hearing what's said in your hurry to disregard it rather than some inability that I don't think you have to understand what's being discussed.

[Preechr]

Why are we talking about the scientific method?

You know, I'm not really sure.

Not my strong point. I turn wrenches for a living.

[CaptainBubba]

CaptainBubba, I'm not trying to attack you here, but I'm not going to accept your label of my comments as invalid just because you say it's so.

I'm no more of a real preacher than you are a captain (unless you really are...) Please note the points where I used words like "God" conditionally. The main belief of my own I've tried to express here is that I believe we are able to think of ourselves as more than just anomalies or abcesses in nature. I believe human existence is important because we can look around and see that all things are important, even if we don't currently understand how it all works together.

Factor our inherent importance in with our unique capabilities within nature, and I simply doubt the idea that the products of those capabilities, our actions, are irrelevant to nature. We can argue whether nature has a cause and or purpose, but argument implies, at least if it is to be constructive, logical progressions. I've tried to remain constructive.

If you want to attack my logic, go right ahead. Keep in mind that your possibly too quick discounting of my posts might be allowing me to "talk over your head," but more because you're not hearing what's said in your hurry to disregard it rather than some inability that I don't think you have to understand what's being discussed.

Importance is a human notion. It is a term we use to describe things which we must divert attention to for us to further ourselves. In the context you use it it could only make sense if one assumes there is a more powerful version of a human who is responsible for our creation which only raises the same questions we have in regards to that entity. The results are the same.

Again I'm sorry If I sounded insulting. Its simply that your argument seems more of one arguing in the existence of a god and not for or against determinism or free will. By all means there could be a god given determinism. In fact god would have to be deterministic as well. Your definition of free will would in fact, in a stunning move of irony, fit into determinism. All things are autonomous.

To explain why this is so take the following example. I create a computer program. I am its creator and god. I give it the "choice" between x = 1 and x=2. where given condition 1 x = 1 and given condition 2 x = 2. Although the program has two options it will choose only one and can choose only one. It is autonomous. Adding in complexity merely complicates the program but does not make it magically or unexplainable. Just complex.

Merely not fully grasping every element of the enormously complex program of existance doesnt mean it transcends logic. Merely that it transcends our ability to fully know it.

[Rosenstern]

I'm willing to say that preechr is one of the better sort of religious people. There may be no arguing with some some his views, but that's all well and good as long as he stays away from real science. He's no Pat Robertson, and that makes him decent in my book.

[kellychaos]

Something with a will? The existence in which we find ourselves is too perfectly ordered for me to believe it to be for the purpose of random events to take place for random reasons.

But see, it's not random. If we take evolution as an example, the actual changes of traits might be random, at least as random as they can be when based on preexisting DNA structure. But the survival of these new traits is anything BUT random. This new trait has to answer to a preexisting environment, and if it doesn't make the cut, it goes away.

PJLANE,

This seems to the argument of all that do not posses an adequate sense of proportion, probability and infinite numeracy.

Indeed, doesn't the fact that there are billions of VISIBLE stars out there suggest to you, Preechr, that the odds that there is life outside our own is much greater than the alternative ... or is it just a fireworks display put on by God for our enjoyment?

Of course, you're going to respond that even given the same elemental distribution as Earth as well as other peripheral factors, odds are that life such as ours would be equally improbable. In the interest of time conservation, I would argue that, while it is true that life exactly like ours is improbable, life relatively similiar to ours is not.

[Preechr]

Kellychaos--

I guess so, if you're coming from the point of view that organisms such as one would find on our planet are pretty easy to develop and support. The argument could go either way. Additionally, using the same logic that makes so many so sure that other life MUST be hiding somewhere out there in that vast expanse, we could easily assume that were that true, we'll never know. The distances involved in interstellar communication just don't work with the time we have allowed to us.

This is more a discussion of fantasy than fact. The truth is, just like I was trying to say before, for all intents and purposes any number of fantastic ideas might as well be the truth of the matter. We are alone in the universe, or not. Either way, the possible existence of aliens should have no bearing whatsoever on your daily life until you see one.

My main point before was that most of us seem to prefer one fantasy over the other in this regard, that extra-terrestrial life does exist. I suggest that we do this for psychological reasons of our own.

Rather than serving as a fireworks show, as you suggested, maybe we could see the stars as the mechanism for delivering to us all the science that has sprung forth from just the simple observation of the universe. I'm sure one of the science guys here could provide us with an impressive list of technological advances we've garnered from our studies of space. Space is a tool, and one that's proven to be extremely valuable to us for hundreds of years.

An example of a similar phenomenon of obvious discoverability can be seen in the studies of the Pacific Rim and it's window into plate tetonics or in the late population expansions into the Peloponnesian Island chains and the wealth of insight this has given us into how societies evolve. It didn't have to be that way. The skeleton and guts of everything we know is completely and almost easily discoverable. Would you say a trail of crumbs leading to a book containing everything you ever wanted to know was just a natural and random occurence that most likely evolved Darwinianly?

Not me.

[Preechr]

I'm willing to say that preechr is one of the better sort of religious people. There may be no arguing with some some his views, but that's all well and good as long as he stays away from real science. He's no Pat Robertson, and that makes him decent in my book.

All in all, thanks.

That being said, I'm not at all religious. At one point, I was headed for seminary, but changed tracks and was pretty much agnostic or deistic for a while. Any spirituality I may enjoy right now is a jumble of many things I've learned over the years that have proven to me that there is logic and reason behind all we can see or experience. In some way, as CaptainBubba just said, everything makes perfect sense, even if we are not currently able to figure out how that is so. Truth is Beauty. Beauty, Truth.

I think theology and religion are important, as they are the history of mankind's attempts to figure out the truths behind what is immediately visible, from many different angles. I prefer to look at what the various religions got right, rather than trying to find reasons to disregard them all systematically by focusing on where they each went astray. I don't look to anyone or any group to sort out what is right for me.

I like science as much as I like spirituality. Being a libertarian, however, you won't ever have to worry about me forcing any beliefs I may or may not have on anyone... :) So, no, I'm no Pat Robertson. No two people are cut from the same cloth. The main reason I'm talking about personal stuff here at all is to hopefully impress upon you guys that just because someone talks about "God" or expresses some sort of belief doesn't mean they're a member of the Hard-Core Conservative Christian Right-Wing Wrestling Party that wants to impose Jesus flavored Shari'a on everybody...

[Preechr]

Importance is a human notion. It is a term we use to describe things which we must divert attention to for us to further ourselves. In the context you use it it could only make sense if one assumes there is a more powerful version of a human who is responsible for our creation which only raises the same questions we have in regards to that entity. The results are the same.

I see your point here, but I'd have been happier if you'd have said something more like importance is a self-centered notion. After all, anything alive is primarily existing under the assumption that it is more important than anything else.

That wasn't really what my usage of the word was attempting to project, however. With the capabilities that we, above any other known organism, have available to us, we are the most dangerous creature in nature. THAT makes us important in that we, moreso than any other living thing, have the power to fundamentally change or even destroy everything we see.

In nature, things just do not exist for no reason. Even though we do not understand what a certain thing's reason is, we now know that it would not exist if it served no purpose. That is the importance we share with all things, right? Above that, nature has demonstrated the ability to bend a being's function to it's own reason or interest, as in the giant tortoises of Galapagos.

Again I'm sorry If I sounded insulting. Its simply that your argument seems more of one arguing in the existence of a god and not for or against determinism or free will.

To me, the discussion here presupposes some sort of motivational force or purpose to existence. If you believe all existence is due solely to random chance, why would you be discussing determinism vs. free will?

By all means there could be a god given determinism. In fact god would have to be deterministic as well. Your definition of free will would in fact, in a stunning move of irony, fit into determinism. All things are autonomous.

To explain why this is so take the following example. I create a computer program. I am its creator and god. I give it the "choice" between x = 1 and x=2. where given condition 1 x = 1 and given condition 2 x = 2. Although the program has two options it will choose only one and can choose only one. It is autonomous. Adding in complexity merely complicates the program but does not make it magically or unexplainable. Just complex.

Merely not fully grasping every element of the enormously complex program of existance doesnt mean it transcends logic. Merely that it transcends our ability to fully know it.

To better illustrate where I'm coming from, and to back up my assertion that one can have spiritual beliefs without necessarily being a religious zealot, please check out the link following...

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

[CaptainBubba]

Importance, destruction, capabilities, dangerousness, and purpose, are all things which hold no water in this conversation. Every one of them is a human construct and is abstract in thought, and holds absolutely no meaning in the context of this conversation. You seem unable to distinguish that which is relevant and which is not.

Again. Even infinite complexity can still be deterministic. Tortoises on Galapagos and the fact that humans are capable of much only means we are complex. This has nothing to do with determinism. I hope you can sort of see that if you think deeply about it for a second. Seperate your spiritual beliefs from your thought process for a moment and evaluate what we are actually discussing. In essence this argument is about the nature of time and existence. Read my previous statements about the program and about rewinding time and consider that no matter how complex humans are, they will inevitably follow the same autonomous path, and even if they dont that merely dictates random probabaility, which I dont believe is what most define free will as. Free will is much like the terms you use to argue its existence in that it makes sense only in a purely abstract human conotation.

The free will/determinism argument only has to do with purpose if you ignore determinism and perpetuate a convoluted system of belief which defies logical thought(see above). Determinism says that everything is autonomous. Nothing more or less. It is not a message of doom or despair and so I continue life as I would before coming to the realization of its truth.

Feelings do not consitute anything in scientific debates. Sorry, but you wont win many arguments with people by saying that you just know or just feel that something is there.

[Sethomas]

I dunno, I got this picture in an email that had the smoke rising from the Twin Towers during 9/11, and if you looked at it right (there were arrows pointing) you could sort of see the devil's face in it. I don't know if that's real or what it means we should believe, but it just got me thinking that life means so much that there's no way it could all be random.

[CaptainBubba]

NO FUCKING WAY!! OMG LINK IT.

If this is true then I might have to reconsider my stubborn ways and accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior. :(

[Preechr]

Well, I agree that we are talking about two separate things here. Maybe the main problem is that you feel that your point of view is the more valid, or that mine is in no way on point, and maybe I feel the same way.

Maybe you really are just so much smarter than I am that I'll just never grasp the subtle distinctions that invalidate everything I've tried to say in "defense" of my original assertion that:

Free will is only the human ability to defy the will of God.

Free will means we get to screw things up.

I honestly did not mean to interject that remark into such a targeted discussion as you say you were having. Maybe, not possessing the mental whatchmacallit required to process the sophisticated intellectualism I was unwittingly witnessing on the first page and a half of this thread, I just read the title and thought, "Hey, I have something flippant to add here!" and did just that.

It was fun to air all that out, even though it seems all I accomplished was to annoy you.

Sorry bout that.

[CaptainBubba]

Free will is only the human ability to defy the will of God.

Free will means we get to screw things up.


If this is what you are aguing then yes, we are talking about two completely different things. Sorry.

[Preechr]

I read back through the discussion, and it seems I pissed you off by mentioning God.

If I ever get a religion, I promise not to try to convert you.

I'll make the government do it.

[Sethomas]

Free will does not exist. Conscious will exists as the illusion of control.

Free will is cogent from a theological perspective, but not of a scientific one.

[kellychaos]

Would a being that wishes to suppress us really give us the mental capacity to think outside the box? Wouldn't it be better for such a being to factor in a safety valve (of sorts) to make us think that we know what the hell might be going on in the broad sense while still keeping us in "the cave" (Re: Plato and Godel)?

[Sethomas]

I knew that, given some amount of time, Kelly would bring up Plato's cave. It's just the quintessential sophomorism.

[kellychaos]

And aside from attacks to my person, you bring what to this argument? En guarde!

[Sethomas]

Well, if God told the primeval Hebrews that they had no free will, how do you think their culture would have evolved? How do you tell them, "If you kill your neighbor, you go to hell. Oh, and you're not really in control of killing your neighbor."

[ziggytrix]

What an absurd question, Seth!

[kahljorn]

"Free will is only the human ability to defy the will of God."

What is the will of God again?

"Free will means we get to screw things up. "

Yes, because you know how big of an effect your daily choice in lunch snackery has on the universe :(


"if God told the primeval Hebrews that they had no free will, how do you think their culture would have evolved?"

I would suppose the same thing that happened in america where we have freedom and justice for all.. and "equality"

[Preechr]

At the risk of being called irrelevant once again...

What is the will of God again?

Whatever it is. IF there is a creator, then there is a will.

Yes, because you know how big of an effect your daily choice in lunch snackery has on the universe :(

Mm-Hmm... While I doubt it, it is possible. Maybe, one day I decide to eat someone that turns out to be important? Maybe I snack up that butterfly that was supposed to flap it's wings and begin the apocalypse.

Wait a minute! Maybe it's my choice to hold this discussion among i-mockers that has rendered my points of view irrelevant! :/

Thanks, kelly, for at least reading what's been said.

For the rest of you, please remember that someone once told you that math is but one tool you have at your disposal. You have a nice claw hammer there, but I'd recommend something more appropriate for changing your oil or bathing your dog. I know that one of the privledges of knowing stuff is being able to berate those that don't know that stuff... or at least aren't as interested as you in wearing such knowledge as some sort of badge... but you might want to think a little more about how being a smartass can make you at least appear to be a dumbass.

After three pages, it's pretty obvious this discussion is going nowhere. It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that a discussion of this type is one of ethical and even (OMG!) metaphysical concerns moreso than one of science or math. As scientifically oriented and theologically ignorant individuals, I'm sure you believe your part in this discussion would be to stop it altogether, since you might well believe science to for some reason be at odds with metaphysics or any sort of God-talk.

Whatever. Hope your horizons expand someday.

[kellychaos]

The science/math versus metaphysical wars have been going on for ages. Darwinism marked a huge fulcrum but, lately, I've seen a lot of apocalyptic talk in pop culture. Recent escalation of natural disasters have only fueled this fire. Interesting?

[kellychaos]

Well, if God told the primeval Hebrews that they had no free will, how do you think their culture would have evolved? How do you tell them, "If you kill your neighbor, you go to hell. Oh, and you're not really in control of killing your neighbor."

Wouldn't God eventually get tired of palying a chess game alone or would it just be an exercise in ego? And why would he have the need to fullfill such humanistic psychological needs? A tad anthropomorphic?

Accepting the premise, did they need to be told by an all-powerful being that they had free will? Wouldn't he simply infuse them with the innate sense that they had free will, wind them up and let them go without giving them the least notion that there was anything more outside the matrix of the sensory abilities that were known to them? Hense, they would think that they had control while having none.

[Preechr]

Even in the Matrix, there was a need satisfied by the battery people for the God figure. There is a need that we satisfy, else there would be no need for us. Everything exists on that basis, right?

It's not just an innate sense... Everything we can see and/or experience tells the same story, no matter how much more new technology allows us to deepen that experience.

And, personally, I see no need for those "wars." Science and Math tell us how something happens, and metaphysics guesses at why something happens. Ethics helps us to decide. My beef with Captain Bubba (and not to single him out, but he's the one that said value is a human invention) is that he's expecting only one sort of thinking to provide him with all he needs to live, and that sort of thinking just happens to be the one he's most fond of, or maybe the one he knows the most about.. I hope he doesn't view his nutrition this way.

[ziggytrix]

After three pages, it's pretty obvious this discussion is going nowhere. It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that a discussion of this type is one of ethical and even (OMG!) metaphysical concerns moreso than one of science or math. As scientifically oriented and theologically ignorant individuals, I'm sure you believe your part in this discussion would be to stop it altogether, since you might well believe science to for some reason be at odds with metaphysics or any sort of God-talk.


Or, and stay with me here, maybe this discussion has been done and done and done, and this time through some of your "adversaries" are taking the flippant route. You are, after all, in the message board attached to a HUMOR site, not a religious site,, so do keep that in mind at all times.


At any rate, the problem with your definition of free will is it assumes that the existence of God is requisite to the argument, when, in my estimation, there can be atheistic arguments for and against the philosophy of determinism.

That said, I think the great majority of discussion in this thread is mental masturbation. Alas the difference between staying power and tedious monotany is subjective. So do what you gotta do, I won't hold it against you. :conspiracy

[CaptainBubba]

Everything is science and math. Sorry. Again.

There is no magic buddy. :/ We all have to grow up, I'm sorry it happened to you in a message board.

[AngPur]

Everything is science and math. Sorry. Again.

There is no magic buddy. :/ We all have to grow up, I'm sorry it happened to you in a message board.

Er, what about Art? You give a shit about art pinko? THAT'S NOT MATH.

[Pub Lover]

Most art can be reduced down to easily expressed math principles.

& the art that can't is shit. :)

[kellychaos]

Art and math are about defining the same thing via a different media ... or way of thinking ... neither is more wrong than the other (Re: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance).

[kahljorn]

"Most art can be reduced down to easily expressed math principles"

and mathematical principals can easily be expressed in art and language :(
Stupid argument. That's like trying to say the english language is better than other languages because it's so definitive.

[Big Papa Goat]

Art is a definitively human form of expression, it has nothing to do with the actual nature of anything.

[CaptainBubba]

THANK YOU. :)

[Pub Lover]

"Most art can be reduced down to easily expressed math principles"

and mathematical principals can easily be expressed in art and language :(
Stupid argument. That's like trying to say the english language is better than other languages because it's so definitive.
& if you had read my second line, I would hope you saw my humour. >:

[ziggytrix]

Art is a definitively human form of expression, it has nothing to do with the actual nature of anything.

Well, other than the actual nature of humans...

[kellychaos]

Art is a definitively human form of expression, it has nothing to do with the actual nature of anything.

Explain please ... and explain as well why math isn't an innate, natural and human form of expression.

[Big Papa Goat]

Human nature wouldn't be different if it wasn't expressed in terms of art. People have a natural tendency to express themselves artistically, but that doesn't mean art is a fundamental way of describing human nature. It may be the best way for a human being to understand human nature, but human nature wasn't created by art, it was created under the principles of biology, (read: chemistry, read: physics) so there's no reason to think our nature can't be defined under those terms, though there may be a great deal of complexity and difficulty, given our complex biological and social nature. Thats another thing I guess, human nature is a result of culture to a pretty significant extent (when I say human nature here, I don't mean in terms of nature/nurture, but in terms of the precise definition of what a human is) and culture is effected by art, but in that sense, art and culture are really just farther up on the reductionism ladder, being based on nothing else but psycholgical-neurological-biological etc. tendencies. Don't tell me no nonsense about the inability for biology (etc) to explain culture neither, because if your going to tell me that, then you should tell me what does explain culture. It didn't fall out of nowhere.


And math is innate, natural and not simply human. Equations for geometrical relationships and all that other jazz describes would have the same validity and reality if humans never put them to paper. The sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees, whether or not you call them degrees, or count them with a base 10 number system, or any of the other little things that humans do. And don't tell me that if we never drew triangles they wouldn't have existed, I don't know much about math, so I can't really think of a more elegant example.
To say science is one of the other things is probably a bit imprecise, since science is really just a way humans have for learning about the universe, it might be more accurate to say physics I guess, referring broadly to the fundamental system of relationships between material things, which whether understood or not, govern activity in the universe.

[CaptainBubba]

you're my new best philosophy board friend papa goat.

[kellychaos]

I am satisfied with that explanation.

Kant, a hero of mine btw, seemed to think that art was the closest that you could get to God ...I suppose you could substitute God for "human nature" in this instance.

[kahljorn]

"Art is a definitively human form of expression, it has nothing to do with the actual nature of anything."

"Human nature wouldn't be different if it wasn't expressed in terms of art. People have a natural tendency to express themselves artistically"
I'll just group these together since they are basically the same

Just the nature of humanity, right? Good thing that's not anything, it's just this thing that exists somewhere but not in this universe and also human beings don't really exist this message board is a lie. So maybe you should consider that before you post your little lies on this message board of lies you dirty liar.
Art is also what, humanities way to express their emotions, to express their feelings on things? That's not part of the universe or anything(it expresses absolutely no nature except for the nature of humanity which is molded by the nature of the universe geez that's weird)?
Their perception on the universe? Human expression and emotion is molded by the nature of this world. As such it is a representation of everything around us, and every force we ever come into contact with. The fact that we are capable of making art is based on biological and psychological conditioning and even physics which eventually loops back to art making us capable of intellectual expression...

Human beings are absolutely unimportant. Math is unimportant, and so is biology. Art is equally as unimportant as the previously mentioned items. For some reason, even if human beings have no understanding of the universe, it still manages to work.
Also I should mention that our entire neuropsychological development that allowed us to discover biology and mathematics was art or human expression. I'm sorry to say but the Nature of sentient organisms evolving is part of this universe and I would say a very important, if not most important(to sentient organisms) part of the universe. I don't know what school you went to but the study of how society has evolved(and how humanity has evolved) is a certain science that I will allow to remain nameless because it wishes to hide from boring eyes.

The argument that art is unimportant because it is a human expression is void of any thought. Human beings are in the universe, and if human beings are in the universe and make art to develop their culture than that is part of the "NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE". Sure, the universe would exist without us, but it could also exist without suns and atoms and whatthefuckeverelse and it probably has existed without them before I believe science mentions something about that with pre-bigbang talk.
Art/expression is/was essential to human development and played a huge part in it. If you don't think human beings being able to communicate with one another is important to their development than you would likely be forming a primative world, because the nature of humanities evolution was built on language and expression. Also, the building you're living in wouldn't be around without the art of masonry, or the art of carpentry or any of the other arts that were expressed and communicated/taught to eachother by means of oral expression.
I don't know, this is a stupid argument that only exists because of scientific dogma on the part of some psuedo-intellectual zealot for science who wants to believe that what they are devoting their life to or what they believe is the only possible true thing and their life is not a waste and when they die the universe will live forever in their memory. Amen.


P.S. I know you're probably thinking of some argument like the universe would exist without us here but the NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE created us and THEN decided to create ART and expression between us that allowed us to develop into what we are today. Obviously you are missing that and all it entails including the fact that EVERYTHING WE HAVE IS NATURAL FOR THE UNIVERSE TO CREATE BECAUSE NOTHING IS UNNATURAL AND IF IT WAS IT WOULDNT EXIST.
Human beings were created by universal nature, art was created by human nature which was created by universal nature to help us develop which is a human nature that was created and controlled and guided by the universal nature.

"And math is innate, natural and not simply human."
the universe wasn't created by numbers, math is merely a way of expressing the universe in a way that human beings can understand. In a sense it is an art because it allows expression of the universe by human beings, just like art does. Arguing outside of humanity is impossible because you are horribly human.
Humans are natural because the universe created them

the end. I don't even know what i wrote.

[kahljorn]

Also I forgot to mention, Pythagoras, the great mathematician had a university in Corona or somesuchspelling that I can't remember because i just woke up. He taught three things there: Philosophy, Mathematics and Music.
I think that's interesting for some reason that may or may not be related to this thread.

[CaptainBubba]

Here. I'll make it simple for ya'll. As far as this argument is concerned:

There is no such thing as importance.

Art and culture are important to us. Good for them. It doesnt mean it has batshit to do with determinism and free will.

[kahljorn]

Yea, like i said it's all unimportant, i don't really know why this argument is in this thread.
Good luck trying to find the answer to freewill and determinism through mathematics, though.
But whether it's important(because nothing is really important, importance is a human expression) or not doesnt eliminate it's validity in an argument, and simply assuming it does because it's unimportant for one reason or another makes you ignorant.

[CaptainBubba]

I shouldn't have to be arguing determinism with you. Its just an aspect of nature. Its just an endpoint from all logical thought.

This whole argument stems from people doing this:

"determism must exist because..."

then someone who doesnt understand what he just said going

"BUT WAIT WHAT ABOUT FLOWERS. FLOWERS ARE PRETTY. THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS."

[kahljorn]

I wasn't arguing determinism, I was arguing a completely different topic because I thought what was being said about it was rather stupid.

Also, when was the last time all you "Natural mathematicians" saw a "Natural geometrical shape". I'm sorry to say but geometrical shapes are actually very unnatural, and from what I understand one way to tell if something was created intellectually or naturally is by looking at how geometrically perfect an item is, the more perfect the more unnatural. I don't think I've ever seen a natural triangle or a natural straight line.. all of that stuff is human. For creating human objects.
I just thought of that when I was eatting my soup and thought it was funny.

[CaptainBubba]

I wasn't arguing determinism, I was arguing a completely different topic because I thought what was being said about it was rather stupid.

Also, when was the last time all you "Natural mathematicians" saw a "Natural geometrical shape". I'm sorry to say but geometrical shapes are actually very unnatural, and from what I understand one way to tell if something was created intellectually or naturally is by looking at how geometrically perfect an item is, the more perfect the more unnatural. I don't think I've ever seen a natural triangle or a natural straight line.. all of that stuff is human. For creating human objects.
I just thought of that when I was eatting my soup and thought it was funny.

See, there shouldnt be a distinction between natural and human made because we are part of nature. The only reason it would be prudent to bring that up is if there was a disscusion where that was fairly close to the main point at hand. I'd say more but if you aren't arguing about determinism anymore than this thread is so derailed that I don't know wether I should just nod my head and ignore it or what.

[The One and Only...]

Math is an art: it just happens to be one which, making certain assumptions, can be practically applied. :formalist

[Sethomas]

Shut up.

[The One and Only...]

Good sir, I do believe that is a duel-worthy insult.

[kahljorn]

"See, there shouldnt be a distinction between natural and human made because we are part of nature."

I just made an entire post about that. It wasn't me arguing the distinction, it was others, i was just making a post that would apply to their logic. Thanks...

[Emu]

Math is an art: it just happens to be one which, making certain assumptions, can be practically applied. :formalist

whenever i read what you right it sounds like "blah blah blah" and then it bounces around in my head like a super ball and i feel a little gayer afterword for reading it.

[kellychaos]

I shouldn't have to be arguing determinism with you. Its just an aspect of nature. Its just an endpoint from all logical thought.

This whole argument stems from people doing this:

"determism must exist because..."

then someone who doesnt understand what he just said going

"BUT WAIT WHAT ABOUT FLOWERS. FLOWERS ARE PRETTY. THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS."

It has to do whether flowers were planned or whether nature evolved in such a way as that the mathematical evolution (nature ordered itself) led to a beautyso that its beauty led to its attractiveness to insects and its continued success and whether beauty and mathematical perfection are the same in human subconscious. Order is the important part here. From whence does it come. That's important!

[kahljorn]

I don't know why more people don't enjoy you on this messageboard, kellychaos, I find you to be entertaining and suave.

[Sethomas]

In my way of thinking, God and human souls designed the big bang to be in such proportions that the beauty of cosmological and natural and human histories would coalesce. Woo.

[kahljorn]

Various occultists and "Spiritual schools" and even religious people say the same thing, seth. I think it has something to do with "Will" in it's purest form(conceptual) which is why I always thought thelema was a fitting name.... A sort of conceptual and consciousness gravity that draws together various ideas and feelings...

[kellychaos]

Although this is what many may consider "pop physics", this passage describing an image of a flowing brook from the the book, Sevel Lessons of Chaos: Spiritual Wisdom From The Science Of Change by John Briggs and F. David Peat, is what i was thinking in a roundabout way:

The second image (re: the brook) shows the turbulence of a mountain stream. Here, apparent discorder masks an underlying pattern. Sit by this stream long enough and you begin to notice that is simultaneously stable and ever-changing. The water's turbulence generates complex shapes that are constantly renewed. So this stream is a metaphor for ourselves. Like the stream, our physical bodies are constantly being renewed and transformed as cells are regularly replaced. Meanwhile, that 'self" that we believe lies within the body at our psychological is also in flux. We are both the same person we were ten years ago and a substantially new person. But we can go further.

A little relflection reveals that the stream depicted here is inextricable from the other ecosystems to which it's connected - the myriad animals and plants that drink from its waters; the twigs, leaves, and seeds that litter the dimple and swirl of its surface; the ancient deposits of glaciers that alter its course; the climate and weather of the region; the season-making orbit of the planet through space. Similarly, each of us as an individual is inter-connect to the systems of nature, society, and thought that flow surround and flow through us. We live within movements constantly affecting each other and creating an unpredictable chaos at many levels. Yet within this same chaos is born all the physical and psychological order that we know.

Perhaps I have my definition of determinism wrong. The way I define it is as a strict and rigid plan with many discrete steps towards a definite purpose coealescing in a and predetermined and finite end. Although I sense a force moving towards a definite purpose with rules, I also see many instances where chaos (call it free will) fills in the gaps and actually serves as a cosmic lubrication, so to speak. So although the cosmos is moving towards an end (or new beginning?), the steps it may take to get there cannot possibly be predetermined. Perhaps a good estimate may be made, however.

[kahljorn]

What you posted is essentially a long drawn out definition of Karma, kellychaos. What you do will likely effect everyone in the world, just like everyone in the world will likely effect you. You could call it chaos theory, karma or just recognize it as something that has to happen regardless...
If you tell someone they are a rat bastard and it makes them angry and they take it out on someone else, then that person gets angry and they take it out on someone else.. yada yada.
Karma is really only individually targetted in mystic conversations to make people feel like the actions they commit will come back to them. Originally it was probably used as a tool to help egotistical people, but now it's spread into a sort of panic of misunderstanding. Isn't it funny the way karma works, it even works against itself.
Somehow when explainations like these come in book form people attach to them more readily than when someone explains them constantly on a message board.

I love this topic and would love to have conversations with you about it, it's such a variable topic and can be used to encompass anything.

[kahljorn]

By the by, what would you consider to be the purpose of that? I think it fits in well with discussions of evolution or the purpose of life. It sort of lends to the whole "Oneness" thing people talk about, what we do as individuals in some sense effects the whole. Because of this, considering humanity as a mass attempting to evolve to something better,(at the very least, considering what you posted as a means to social and cultural evolution) does what we do in our day to day lives have a large effect on how the whole works? A weak link in the chaos chain sort of thing.
So if humanity as a whole is trying to evolve into a super humanity, to what end? If the universe(or existence) functions on the same chaotic level, then how the whole of humanity is functioning effects how the whole of the universe is working, then the universe is also attempting to evolve to become a super universe. That can go into a lot of other thoughts.. but i always wonder, what's the point? Are we going to go around and beat up other universes, or are we going to chaos chain the other universes into becoming super universes? And if we do that, what's the point? At a certain point it becomes pointless. Who cares if you're big and bad, or if you're completed within yourself, through and through. What happens after that? You become stale and algaeic, creating another imperfect lifeform which collapses the whole. Rust is a curse to those who seek unity or perfection. The only thing I can think that makes it worthwhile is the pursuit of bliss, or the desire to flee from it. Probably both, unification errors right personification errors, solace within the epitemy of our own dualistic and chaotic nature-- keep pushing that stone. Duality is our epic of desertion and I pray it ends knowing it's infinite... is pursuing bliss anymore rewarding than the persuit of futility? I find they share the same facade. Repitition becomes our world, will our manifestation and copulation/ pity our means of survival. It makes you feel shame for yourself and everything around you, knowing it's all a built up dilusion based on the desire for meaning, but there can be no meaning and never will except within your insanity. Cthulu epics become exciting while eternal peace and solace become the weapon to bore eyes.
The universe is insane and in a state of constant angst, it's adorable. It is likely we have become our own epitimized universe an infinite amount of times then commited suicide. The will of our broken souls then molded our new haven while pieces of our angelic nature stayed in jolly candy land.
The universe is so pointless and eternity makes my heart throb with hatred. Who's idea was that anyway?
the funny thing is that bliss is attributed to nothingness, absolute void. Escapades from this. Somewhere along the line of striving for bliss everyone became a nihilist.

[kellychaos]

Perhaps chaos (or free will) is a matter of perspective and context. Perhaps we can only experience the free will as it pertains to us at our own respective level; whereas, when you step at another higher level, this flux (cause and effect) that we call life forms first, a discernable pattern, and then no movement ... no time? ... at all. Perhaps what you call "karma" has no discernable effect at all or becomes a plot outside the graph in those higher levels. "The Devil is in the details" ... so to speak.

The Big Bang becomes the Big Crunch and then renews itself into another Big Bang a' la "the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe"? You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself about and that's ... really ... what it's all about. :( I'm such a victim of pop culture. :/

[kellychaos]

By the by, what would you consider to be the purpose of that? I think it fits in well with discussions of evolution or the purpose of life. It sort of lends to the whole "Oneness" thing people talk about, what we do as individuals in some sense effects the whole. Because of this, considering humanity as a mass attempting to evolve to something better,(at the very least, considering what you posted as a means to social and cultural evolution) does what we do in our day to day lives have a large effect on how the whole works? A weak link in the chaos chain sort of thing.

I'm not sure exactly where you're getting the idea of expansion so from my discussion. There are always gaps to be filled ... refinements. Think Derrida and deconstructionalism.

[kahljorn]

"Perhaps what you call "karma" has no discernable effect at all or becomes a plot outside the graph in those higher levels"

Anybody who I've ever known who actually knows anything about karma or the way the world works would refer to karma as "Cause and effect". Whether it has a 'discernable effect' or not, it's there. Karma's sort of the complete(all the lies and truths, everything that has happened) history of the world, coalesced into a human concept that what happens in the future can be changed today(and of course that the past influences today, and thus the future). I think it's simple, most people find that hard for some reason.
Karma almost argues against freewill because it essentially states that you are a collection of everything that has happened to you, and to the world(because despite what happened to you, the world happened to you first). There's considered to be multiple levels of karma, blood karma(family), national, self and I guess universal if you want to get down to it. That means all the stigma your family (what kind of people they are, what religion they are, what kind of choices they make, their knowledge) and nation(same as family but with it's own variables) have gained, all the hate, all the good, all the bad, all the whatever is within you and forms your personality.
When you become enlightened(stipossidely) you disconnect from your karma, your karma becomes zero. Essentially, you go against your history, what you SHOULD believe and how you SHOULD act(according to the various karmas you have collected) become a non-issue, and you become capable of making your own decisions based on looking at the world without the dirty taint of your karma. Maybe we are capable of freewill, but not everyone has it? In that instance, freewill would be considered a self-freemasonry(the freedom to make yourself free, or the freedom to bind yourself, i spose), or masonry of the world and universe; essentially, will to power and will to manifestation. Will that is outside of your "Self" as you were born, will within your true self that is outside of the human drama(being within the human drama is being influenced by another, and thus your choices are limited). It's sort of like a freedom outside of sociological restraints.
I can still find flaws in that, though. For example, your karma still brought you to the point that you could become free of it all. But maybe that is more of a breaking point, creation unbridled or something. The big bang inside your underpants.
Is that easy to understand?

As for the big bang happening over and over again, that's what i was indicating(all the infinitey stuff, from bliss to futility) except I like to throw in some kind of romantic conceptualism that gives the neverending story a saga like feel. it essentially boils down to various forms of gravity, conceptual and idealogical.

In the end, maybe people choose to be ignorant and incapable of experiencing freewill. If everything is absolutely eternal and infinite, than everyone and everything has already been both an ascended master and a piece of shit-- possibly even simotaneously-- an infinite amount of times. Maybe the universe as a whole is the only thing that has freewill, and we are both it's unwitting bitch and the pieces that make it whole.

How much freedom can you really have within something that doesn't exist, though?

[kahljorn]

"I'm not sure exactly where you're getting the idea of expansion so from my discussion. There are always gaps to be filled ... refinements."

"Similarly, each of us as an individual is inter-connect to the systems of nature, society, and thought that flow surround and flow through us"

From there. I'm so exhausted, though, maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. It's too hot in here :( Plus I haven't smoked pot in a few days, and I've been getting stoned constantly for so long.. plus i'm hungover. My brain feels fuzzy ;(