hi Bill, You have to understand the concept that i explained below to understand the concept of FREEWILL.

There are two world: one is Inner world and another one is outer world. Inner world is our mind(this has lots of layers and structure but now you consider only inner world for simplification).outer world is our physical world. According to our inner world all reality are already manifested. For example you would like to have Football which is not available to you in the outer world right now. But this Football is already available to you in your inner world. Not only Football, whatever you want already available to you in the inner world.

Now how can we bring that Football from inner world to outer world.

Here is the procedure:

You have three aspect of mind one is Conscious,subconscious, super-conscious. In the super conscious mind all probability,possibility is already there to manifest anything, In our example Football. So there is one probability to manifest this Foot ball is available in super-conscious mind. So what should we do to bring this Foot ball in your outer world.....? You just need to BELIEVE in your subconscious mind that this football is already available to you. Once if you believe that it's already your reality, particular probability starts manifest step by step. Sooner you will get the Foot ball.

Fist of all you tell me whether you understand or not. After that i will tell you how can we create our life(above example we create Foot ball) without violating another person Freewill.

While the "Super Conscious" is an interesting theory, I see it as a quaint one based on the assumption of universal consciousness, which I see no reason to believe actually exists.

What mechanisms could account for the illusion of a Super-Conscious? Let me think....

Consider the idea that Evolution operates on many different levels at the same time, is it not possible for an evolutionary trend to have begun to match individuals to their societies, by creating relatively simple rules, that do not require the existence of a "Super-Consciousness"? Consider if you will "Pre-Social Robots" such as the cockroach robot. With nothing more than a little heat, and a smell, the Cockroach robot can significantly change the hiding patterns of real (large) cockroaches.

Consider the Boids program, does it not create flocking behavior resembling bird flocks or fish schools, using only a couple of simple interaction rules?

If we consider a finite, rather than infinite capacity to respond, and some "Social Rules" or instincts that apply to social situations such as an "Ethical Instinct", we can clearly see that much of the so called Super-Conscious is wild speculation, and is not needed to explain "Free Will". The problem then with "Free Will" becomes to what extent is "Free Will" actually free, and to what extent is it predetermined?

The answer I think lies more towards Searles "Intention" rules, where we assume that there are three levels of control within the "Intentional" system. (Searle always points out that Intention is based on a German word, and is not at all the same as Intension, and does not talk about the goals of the human, so much as the fact that the goals are directed AT somethign.

The first level is pre-existing intention, which might include the previous plans and thoughts of the individual, the second level is current intention, which might include the choices that are made of how to act at the moment, and the last is Action, or the choices of which muscles to move to achieve the goal.

To understand "Free Will" and why it has become problematic, we need to understand that current Intention, has been shown to be presaged by events in other parts of the brain as much as 7 seconds before the actual decision is recognized by the brain.

In other words, there is a question of predestiny, in the sense that the current intention far from being the result of will, tends to be a complex melange of previous intention, and pre-conscious priorities unrelated to actual thought, and therefore to some extent predetermined by pre-conscious events, not will.

The choice of which muscles to activate, is however almost always in an adult, a matter of habit, and skill, rather than a conscious choice. Even higher order processing might, involve predetermined routines or macros, cobbled together from previous predetermined macros.

In essence, Searles Model suggests that much of what we think of as free will, might just be feedback from pre-existing intentions, and predetermined strategic and tactical events, that are only partially influenced by said intentions. He thinks the "Intentional Gaps" define a location for Free will, but I think the "Intentional Gaps" exist because during those gaps, pre-conscious events are affecting the output of the "Intentional System" and as a result are not available to introspection. If this is the case, then Searles system far from assuring "Free Will" illustrates how tenuous our understanding of how it might exist can be.

Without the rampant speculation on the nature of the "Superconscious", and with evidence of the at least partial predestination of the current intention, I see little support for the concept of Will as a causitive agent. What is more likely I am sorry to say, (will being such a nice concept) is a retro-fitting of a "Theory of Will" to mostly predetermined functions. as a way of the brain, explaining its own actions to itself.... Think of Erkle saying "I meant to do that".

While the "Super Conscious" is an interesting theory, I see it as a quaint one based on the assumption of universal consciousness, which I see no reason to believe actually exists.

What mechanisms could account for the illusion of a Super-Conscious? Let me think....

Consider the idea that Evolution operates on many different levels at the same time, is it not possible for an evolutionary trend to have begun to match individuals to their societies, by creating relatively simple rules, that do not require the existence of a "Super-Consciousness"? Consider if you will "Pre-Social Robots" such as the cockroach robot. With nothing more than a little heat, and a smell, the Cockroach robot can significantly change the hiding patterns of real (large) cockroaches.

Consider the Boids program, does it not create flocking behavior resembling bird flocks or fish schools, using only a couple of simple interaction rules?

If we consider a finite, rather than infinite capacity to respond, and some "Social Rules" or instincts that apply to social situations such as an "Ethical Instinct", we can clearly see that much of the so called Super-Conscious is wild speculation, and is not needed to explain "Free Will". The problem then with "Free Will" becomes to what extent is "Free Will" actually free, and to what extent is it predetermined?

The answer I think lies more towards Searles "Intention" rules, where we assume that there are three levels of control within the "Intentional" system. (Searle always points out that Intention is based on a German word, and is not at all the same as Intension, and does not talk about the goals of the human, so much as the fact that the goals are directed AT somethign.

The first level is pre-existing intention, which might include the previous plans and thoughts of the individual, the second level is current intention, which might include the choices that are made of how to act at the moment, and the last is Action, or the choices of which muscles to move to achieve the goal.

To understand "Free Will" and why it has become problematic, we need to understand that current Intention, has been shown to be presaged by events in other parts of the brain as much as 7 seconds before the actual decision is recognized by the brain.

In other words, there is a question of predestiny, in the sense that the current intention far from being the result of will, tends to be a complex melange of previous intention, and pre-conscious priorities unrelated to actual thought, and therefore to some extent predetermined by pre-conscious events, not will.

The choice of which muscles to activate, is however almost always in an adult, a matter of habit, and skill, rather than a conscious choice. Even higher order processing might, involve predetermined routines or macros, cobbled together from previous predetermined macros.

In essence, Searles Model suggests that much of what we think of as free will, might just be feedback from pre-existing intentions, and predetermined strategic and tactical events, that are only partially influenced by said intentions. He thinks the "Intentional Gaps" define a location for Free will, but I think the "Intentional Gaps" exist because during those gaps, pre-conscious events are affecting the output of the "Intentional System" and as a result are not available to introspection. If this is the case, then Searles system far from assuring "Free Will" illustrates how tenuous our understanding of how it might exist can be.

Without the rampant speculation on the nature of the "Superconscious", and with evidence of the at least partial predestination of the current intention, I see little support for the concept of Will as a causitive agent. What is more likely I am sorry to say, (will being such a nice concept) is a retro-fitting of a "Theory of Will" to mostly predetermined functions. as a way of the brain, explaining its own actions to itself.... Think of Erkle saying "I meant to do that".

RG: "For example you would like to have Football which is not available to you in the outer world right now."

But I have no interest in football.

GS: "While the 'Super Conscious' is an interesting theory, I see it as a quaint one based on the assumption of universal consciousness, which I see no reason to believe actually exists."

I tend to agree with you, there. I don't know how essential that concept is to what Raja believes. It is certainly not essential to what he wrote. What seems essential is his distinction between the 'inner world' and the 'outer world.'

...

Personally, I base the idea of will on that of knowledge. The will is knowledge in action.

GS: "Without the rampant speculation on the nature of the 'Superconscious,' and with evidence of the at least partial predestination of the current intention, I see little support for the concept of Will as a causitive agent."

Knowledge is the cause of free choice. That is what we call, 'will.' 'Will' is just another word for 'knowledge' in terms of the actions coming from it... Just as one might refer to Lord Obama as President, but also as Commander-in-Chief... two words for the same entity in terms of its different applications.

Technically, there is no contradiction between saying that an act is freely chosen and saying that it is predestined. An act is freely chosen in the sense that it is caused by knowledge. An action is predestined in the sense that it necessarily occurred. An action which is caused by knowledge and which is necessary is both freely chosen and predestined.

What is Free Will....?

For example, Ten people(including me) want to get a job.Let company names be company1,company2,company3....etc. can i choose freely any one of company...? if i choose any one of them, can i have job successfully...? I doubt it. I may or may not get Job. Then How can i claim that i have the free will even if i choose and can't get the job....? Can't i decide freely among several alternative...? If i can't choose freely, how can i become freewill being.....? If so, Is not God provide Freewill for me...?

This great question can only be answered when we include the whole cosmos(super-conscious) as well as other individual.

Now Ten people seems to be competitors for each others. Am i right...? But when we bring our attention to inner level ,there is no competition exist. For example My inner self has chosen company1 for me. So it pushes me to go to attend the interview for company1. As soon as i attend for company1 i will surely get a job. Because probability of getting the job in company1 already manifested in invisible realm(Super-conscious) for me. Remaining nine people inner self has chosen another choice except company1.It never chosen company1 for remaining nine people. Because OUR INNER SELF is ONE. So there is no contradiction in our self. In that way when another person follow his inner self, he successfully can chooses correct choice .He never fails. So ONE Choice is choice of all individual in this universe. Correct choice is agreement of ALL.

coming back to my first question "Is not God provide Freewill for me...?" No. He has given freewill to each and everyone. But it is our responsibility to take the choice. To take the choice, we need KNOWLEDGE.

-Rajagopalan from INDIA.

I am still unconvinced that you need a SuperConscious

There is no doubt that there is an Environment, in which to have to decide, but to assume God, or SuperConscious, is a religious rather than philosophical decision, and thus argument from religion has no greater validity in philosophy than argument from tautology.

I think both of you are passing off the question of predestination too cavalierly, it has a great bearing on how we treat people who have transgressed social boundaries. If we assume "Free Will" we assume that the transgressor "Chose" to transgress, if we assume some predetermination, and some differential between peoples predeterminable responses, we might accept that people with a particular condition, need protection from the assumption that they "Chose" to transgress.

Think of this from the point of view of an ADDHD sufferer with learning disabilities.

There is no way that someone like this CAN'T transgress social norms. Luckily as they age, some of it will be ameliorated by growth, and they will eventually be able to operate as a slightly disabled adult.

In a liberal environment they might get the benefit of the doubt, but in a conservative environment they will never get the chance, because it will be assumed that they choose to transgress the boundaries.

The assumption of free will in this case, means that they will be marginalized from birth. This might be acceptable in a Caste society, but should not be acceptable in a classless society.

RG: "Then How can i claim that i have the free will even if i choose and can't get the job....?"

By applying for the job... that is an act of free will, of knowledge in action. Getting the job is a question of some other person's freedom.

Yeah, or economic times.... If there are no jobs to get, should you be punished for not finding one?

GS: "I am still unconvinced that you need a SuperConscious."

What in the world for?

GS: "In a liberal environment they might get the benefit of the doubt, but in a conservative environment they will never get the chance, because it will be assumed that they choose to transgress the boundaries."

What nonsense!! You are letting your political beliefs confuse your metaphysics.

I say that knowledge is real --- even if limited and imperfect. Knowledge leading to action is what we call 'will.' And again, I repeat, there is no logical contradiction between predestination and will.

The fundamental metaphysical objection that men raise comes from those who hold that only matter and motion are real. I adamantly disagree with such a position.

GS: "Yeah, or economic times.... If there are no jobs to get, should you be punished for not finding one?"

What are you referring to, vagrancy laws? Whatever it is seems to have no relevance to the metaphysical issues involved in the question of will.

Again there is no mistake if we have a deeper view.

"There is no way that someone like this CAN'T transgress social norms".

Of course you are right. But we have to understand what is happening at a deeper level. Some individual got disharmony with universe. You may be thinking that this is due to learning disabilities or some other cause, so that they have been Marginalized. Of course not.But this condition(learning disabilities) also has chosen by Super-conscious itself to fulfill its Overall goal. So individual disharmony is purposefully chosen by super-conscious to fulfill its overall goal.

If you do not get touch with what Super-conscious purpose is for you, You will be pulled into another person agenda.So you will working for another person who is working for His own will(Super-conscious will).

When people view their life or focus in this dimension as not fulfilling their highest value fulfillment, they choose to disengage their focus. Even within these decisions and choices, the value fulfillment is accomplished within consciousness for all involved.

"The assumption of free will in this case, means that they will be marginalized from birth."

Yes of course. It is marginalized for the highest purpose of all individual involved. They will be working for overall moment of the universe but not their own purpose.But still they are fulfilling purpose of all involved.In both ways they will be working for the universe.

Individual never realize their own potential unless universe decides.

You realize about his higher self only when, One consciousness awaken through you But it is not when you awaken.

Or other way around It is not when your EGO awaken but it is when super-conscious awakes the EGO. It is in the decision of Super-conscious not in the individual. One individual works for his higher purpose or not,he is also important to the overall moment of Universe.

"By applying for the job... that is an act of free will, of knowledge in action. Getting the job is a question of some other person's freedom."

If you choose a choice with inspiration of your deeper self(aspect of super-conscious),that decision is for you. That way is for you. That is for you alone. Not for anyone.Because fulfillment of that choice already happened in invisible realm(Super-conscious). If you take the first step ,second step will be shown to you at a right time.In that way fulfillment surely will happen. You don't have to bother about another person freedom. Your decision is his decision also. Not only his decision but all the individual decision.

I think your Inner and Outer worlds are more commonly understood as Objective (Outer) and Subjective (Inner) realities. But realizing that both realities are subject to something else--as you call it--the super-conscious, is a difficult thing for people to understand. Roberto Assagioli, an Italian Psychiatrist, wrote an excellent primer on this in "The Act of Will." It's out of print, but his psychological concepts are still very valid. It takes discipline to be the kind of person whose will is so in tune with the Universal Will, that one would never ask anything contrary to what was absolutely in tune with this. Only Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have this ability. But it is awe-inspiring to think that we could all reach that point on earth!

"it is awe-inspiring to think that we could all reach that point on earth"

Whether individual has to be align with universe or not is decided by Universe not by ourselves. Because individual connection with universe is very important to overall moment of Universe.

I wonder if there isn't some synergy between the mind of man, acting as Will, and the Universal Will that blurs the boundaries of cause and effect?

Hi Janet ,

Kindly explain your question briefly.

I can see the workings of your mind, when you say that it is the SuperConscious that decides whether the ego is successful. But, as I was trying to point out, we don't need a SuperConscious if we merely accept that social pressure ACTS as a superconscious without actually being one.

Marginalization is a conspiracy of the Norm to exclude people who transgress the norm. This is not something that we can educate away, being as it is instinctual and is meant to drive the population into smaller cliques so as to spread them across a wider area, but is not in actual fact a conscious system, that can have a "Will" but merely an extension of instinct within the human body.

It is because it is NOT conscious that it cannot protect people like my theoretical ADDHD sufferer from marginalization even in a liberal society.

What we have learned to do in self-defense is to create cultures where people are indoctrinated into compliance with the norm, in an attempt to allow more people to exist within a small area. But these Cultures do not manage the extremes of mental health, merely allow more people to meet a Normative level of acceptance, and thus not trigger the "them or Us" instinct to protect the clique.

But, it is a measure of our failure, that despite the fact that people in the society are intelligent and if they had a chance to think about it , would if informed give the guy a break, that our societies, our cultures, and even our education systems assume that anyone who fails to meet the mark is choosing to do so, and punishes those who fail by first marginalization and later by incarceration.

The assumption of Will when applied to culture, is I think a very bad idea.

Part of the reason I think that this discussion is important, is because we assume that instincts are limited to within the body, and to the actions of an individual. Despite the fact that again and again we have documented the "Herd Instinct" in grazing animals, and the Pack instinct in Wolves, and the Pride instinct in large cats, we assume that in humans all that has been superseded by our vaunted intelligence, despite the fact that we have for centuries refused to look closely at how our instincts impact on our social development. Since the Instincts work in the Pre-conscious by biasing our processing, we have no real defense against them, and it is often the working of our instincts that complicates human interactions, in unexpected and certainly irrational ways.

The surliness of the marginalized, is often a recognition that they aren't being given their due.

Yet, often the assumption is that it is a reaction to gullt and so surly individuals are often assumed to be guilty. But really, it is the indication that the cliquing process has excluded them, and they have recognized it, and are trying to distance themselves from the population that has excluded them.

Is this the operation of a superconsciousness, pray tell me where does surliness fit into your so bulletproof expression of superconscious Will?

GS: "we don't need a SuperConscious if we merely accept that social pressure ACTS as a superconscious without actually being one."

Not hardly... Society doesn't really exist any more than super-consciousness. Pressure comes from family members, from friends, from enemies, etc. as individuals exercising their individual wills. We generalize this by saying 'social pressure' but all that really comes from individuals, acting as individuals. Some of this pressure may be good, some bad. But there is no universal law behind it all.

The objection I have to 'super-consciousness,' 'universal will,' and similar New Age religious concepts is that there is no identifiable cause being invoked by those who use such terms. Somehow magic is behind it all.

I have no objection, on the other hand, to the idea of a divine will, or of divine providence, etc. For in naming such things we do state a cause. Super-consciousness and universal will are the atheist's way of having some religious feeling, while rejecting religion, itself. But you can't have it both ways... it makes no sense.

GS: "Marginalization is a conspiracy of the Norm to exclude people who transgress the norm."

People love conspiracies, do they not? But let's get real... where is the evidence that some group of nasty people are getting together to stick it to others? There is no evidence because it isn't happening.

Name names, Graeme!! Who is it that you would accuse of this 'conspiracy?'

GS: "Despite the fact that again and again we have documented the "Herd Instinct" in grazing animals, and the Pack instinct in Wolves, and the Pride instinct in large cats, we assume that in humans all that has been superseded by our vaunted intelligence, despite the fact that we have for centuries refused to look closely at how our instincts impact on our social development."

I make no such assumption. A herd is a group of individual animals. Consider a herd of wildebeests. To a causal observer they may seem to act as one. But the scientist surely must identify some causal unity before supposing there to be some sort of super-wildebeest.

It is the same with men. We are individual animals. Certainly we are not pure, disembodied spirits. We have passions coming from our bodies. Aristotle recognized that fact. I would certainly like to know who it is who assumes otherwise.

GS: "Since the Instincts work in the Pre-conscious by biasing our processing, we have no real defense against them, and it is often the working of our instincts that complicates human interactions, in unexpected and certainly irrational ways."

Name names, Graeme!! What is the name for an instinct against which we have no real defense? Certainly we can exercise self-control over the passions. Frequently men do not do so and end up causing grief to themselves and others. But just the same, there are men who exercise admirable self-control.

BO: "Name Names Graeme"

Bill, you so little understand how my mind works....

But just for you I will attempt to suggest a few instincts that you can't always overcome by "Will"

To name just a few, there is the instinct to turn your head towards the sound of breaking glass, this "Orienting" instinct is already moving your head long before you begin to think of not turning it unless you already knew the glass would break. Or there is the blink instinct, where someone passes their hand too close to your eyes, and your eyes close almost reflexively to protect you eyeball from damage.

Or there is the flinch, or cringe instinct that bullies like, that makes you draw back and sort of crouch when someone makes as if to punch you.

You who value so deeply the early philosophers, should know that self control can only go so far, and everyone despite their claims of self control has one or two instinctual actions that they don't even realize they are doing. Well cliquing is one of those things that people do instinctively, without really realizing that they are doing it. They hang around with people that are more like them than others.

We have lots of different names for these cliques, there are your neighbors who live near you, your co-workers that work at the same office/plant/job, there are your congregation if you go to church, or your Unit if you are in the Army, your Flight if you are in the airforce, or your Shipmates in the navy. There is core for officers, and messmates for non-coms, there are literally hundreds of cliques formed at different times in our lives, and we don't even think about how much belonging to them means to us, until we are rejected by one or two or a number. Marginalization is about the rejection you feel when your supposed clique rejects you. Some call it predjudice, but it happens even within the same identifiable groups, as people transgress boundaries set by the group for whatever reason.

It's the teenage girl, who's friends suddenly dump on her, because she is wearing the wrong color of pants, skirts, shirts, or lipstick. The non-jock who gets picked last in every phys-ed game, the

burgeoning scientist, who is teased in home room because he is more interested in science than in girls, at a time when others are already dating and thinking of getting married. It's the non-christian in a christian family, who gets frozen out of all but family dinners because he doesn't toe the line. It's the Moslem woman who has been raped, and who's father would rather kill her than accept that he couldn't protect her from a powerful warlord like Gaddhafi. Name names? I couldn't begin to.

GS: "Bill, you so little understand how my mind works...."

Well, if you understood how my mind works you would have named these reflexes before, instead of just presenting them as glittering generalities.

GS: "You who value so deeply the early philosophers, should know that self control can only go so far, and everyone despite their claims of self control has one or two instinctual actions that they don't even realize they are doing."

And if you who so deeply scorn classical philosophy, had read what I said, you would understand that such reflexes are not caused by knowledge, and so are not the proper subject of will.

GS: "Well cliquing is one of those things that people do instinctively, without really realizing that they are doing it. They hang around with people that are more like them than others."

Nonsense. People are attracted to each other through the passions... over which reason can exercise control. The question is whether one exercises control or just follows one's passions unthinkingly. The four virtues, wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment are all necessary. Leave out any one of them and one is headed for disaster.

GS: "Name names? I couldn't begin to."

Obviously, because there is no conspiracy involved... just individuals acting as they desire.

Perhaps you should review the meaning of the word...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspiracy

BO: "Nonsense. People are attracted to each other through the passions..."

Ah, yes the "Passions" let us not forget that "Passions" are emotions, and that emotions are driven by instinctual "Drives" or libido, that in turn bias the very processing by which we are supposed to achieve self-control, and sound judgement. The myth that reason can assert control over the "Passions" assumes the primacy of will, when in fact, the pre-conscious application of libido, colors our will long before we even know that we are going to express it. How then do we apply this information, before we know we need it pray tell?

It is an unfortunate mistake by early philosophers who mistook the ability to introspect an indication of agency as an indicator of causality. Knowledge does not cause will, it colors the expression of pre-conscious applications of libido, in a manner that we interpret as will after the fact. Our Strategic Choices, are not what drives our decisions, but inform what drives our decisions, so that we can react, with some semblence of self-control as long as we are not under stress, our ability to do so under stress depends entirely on factors that are not under the control of will.

GS: "It is an unfortunate mistake by early philosophers who mistook the ability to introspect an indication of agency as an indicator of causality. Knowledge does not cause will, it colors the expression of pre-conscious applications of libido, in a manner that we interpret as will after the fact."

As usual, you are wrong. First of all, I didn't quote any "early philosopher." I was expressing my own conclusion, based on my understanding of the reality of knowledge and will. Secondly, I do not say that knowledge causes will, I say that knowledge in action is what men call will. Will is not some special compartment within the soul.

Why do I say such things? Because that is what men actually mean by will. Not all acts are willed, as you correctly note. Sometimes one simply acts through a reflex action; sometimes one acts in ignorance.

Let us go back to my favorite examples... a man is standing on a ladder holding a hammer. His enemy sneaks up to him and shakes the ladder. Being frightened he drops the hammer and grabs for whatever he can. The hammer falls on his enemy's head killing him.

Consider a second example... once again a man is standing on a ladder holding a hammer. He sees his enemy walk up to the ladder. He drops the hammer on his enemy's head, killing him.

In the first case the man does not will his enemy's death. In the second he did. The difference in the two cases comes from the fact that in the second case he knew exactly what he was doing in killing his enemy; while in the first case, the man simply acted to prevent a fall --- the death of his enemy was simply an accidental side effect of his action.

GS: "let us not forget that 'Passions' are emotions, and that emotions are driven by instinctual 'Drives' or libido, that in turn bias the very processing by which we are supposed to achieve self-control, and sound judgement."

The emotions are not 'driven.' But they certainly are influenced, just as you say, by factors over which we have limited control. And they certainly can cloud one's judgment, again as you say. Thus all the virtues are necessary: wisdom, self-control, courage and sound judgment.

Let us go back to the second example, above. Suppose the man on the ladder is enraged at seeing his enemy so that he can not think straight. Is it reasonable to punish a man who acts simply out of anger?

I say that a man who kills simply out of anger has undoubtedly a history behind his actions. He has lost his temper many times before without attempting to control it... without exercising sound judgment. Thus his killing his enemy is the result of habit. And a habitual crime is necessarily worse than one which is not habitual. So yes, he ought to be punished on the basis of his long-standing habit. For even if he did not know, he should have known what he was doing.

Ah, if emotions are not "Driven" how do they motivate to action? Please tell that pretty femaie weeping in the corner that she is not "driven to tears" by the cutting remarks of her so called freinds.

What I'm thinking is a blurring of cause-and-effect, within the objective reality we experience, because we have no way of understanding the realm in which the Universal will exists. Is Universal will acting simultaneously, or do we perceive it that way because it manifests in "our' time? Is Universal Will the Cause, or is our Will the cause? Probably a case-by-case basis, but--who knows for sure?

Hi Graeme

>>Since the Instincts work in the Pre-conscious by biasing our processing, we have no real defense against them, and it is often the working of our instincts that complicates human interactionsSince the Instincts work in the Pre-conscious by biasing our processing, we have no real defense against them, and it is often the working of our instincts that complicates human interactions

R: "You attract into your life whatever you think(feel)"

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

First of all, do you know what feelings are?

Most people can't distinguish between feelings and emotion.

I think feelings are the Meta-Cognitive feedback from the limbic system, that acts as the last step in conscious control, by placing our experience in a limbic context. Note that this is AFTER the instinctual and emotional biasing, and after the pre-conscious has made decisions, while you are "experiencing the stimuli, about 500 milliseconds after it reached your sensory system, but before you have vetoed the decisions if you "choose to" with your "Free Won't".

If what you said was true, most of us poor people would be money magnets, inviting income into our lives. It ain't necessarily so.

Or consider the PTSD victim that can't stop the flashbacks of the "Bad Time" as their body tries hard to figure out how to do things better, the "Next" time. Do they attract mortar shells? Only during the War, I would expect.

What I suspect, is that this tautology, is merely an oversimplification of a complex feedback relationship, that tends to recreate bizzare and uncomfortable situations despite the amount you think of them, simply because your body wants to learn how to deal with them in a less toxic manner.

That you end up thinking about them is part of the emotional feedback loop, where memories of times your amygdala has been fully activated, are burnt semipermanently into your brain. I was just reading an article in the new Polish journal of Neuroscience, where a Nurse was discussing the best way to treat PTSD and suggesting that 1 on 1 counseling was the best option, and certain types of Cognitive Therapy, involving the separation of the emotion from the memory worked the best to treat it, in a 2 of 3 based approach involving psycho-medicine.

But of course that is not emotionally satisfying and assuming that you attract deadbeats into your life is easier than changing your personality from victim to assertive self-protective and effective self-manager.

Sorry Janet, I sent you a reply, but it seems to have been lost.

There is a problem with "Cause and Effect" and the human mind that relates to the nature of the architecture of the brain. The problem is not easy to state, so bear with me.

Searle I think, said something like (And I don't quote) that there are three things necessary for causation:

1. a precedence relation, This came before that, or that came after this

2. Proximity so that causality can transfer from the cause to the effect,

3. Entanglement, or some transfer function that actually affects the effect.... (sorry about the aliteration on effect)

The problem is a simple concurrency problem that has become more and more difficult as we increase the number of processors in a multiprocessing architecture in computing, and that we can project back onto the brain because neural networks still have concurrency issues. The brain has Massive concurrency issues, which it overcomes despite their existence.

Networks don't necessarily do sequences well.

In other words the problem lies in the Precedence Relation.

Given a detected precedence, and evidence of proximity, our minds will project upon the environment the theory that there is a transfer function, if two events seem related, which they often do due to some proximity in time.

In fact we have documented evidence I believe which shows that two events that are proximate in time, tend to be linked in our mind, whether or not they are actually linked in reality.

The brain can't use an effect like "Turings Paper Tape", if only because paper is not made up of neurons, and there is no biological mechanism that will allow the tape to separate from the other tissues, without weakening the binding that keeps the brain together.

Instead, since 1990 and Susan Gathercoles work on the Short Term Memory, we can predict that the brain will use Pseudo-Sequences, to simulate sequences. Hofstadters associative program called Slip-Net, was designed to allow the association of precedence relations within such pseudo-sequences, by associating elements in the pseudo-sequence with precedence relations.

The concurrency problem has to do with the reporting of parallel processes to the pseudo-sequential record of events we store as "Experience". When any two processes need to be added to the pseudo-sequence in close enough proximity, the actual order can get scrambled by the deadlock management needed to keep them from reporting simultaneously, and the net effect is that the precedence is scrambled in the record. In an attempt to keep causality correct, the brain reprocesses the pseudo-sequence, and "Straightens up the record" before causation is detected.

This means that far from being accurate, there is a bias towards implying causation if it might have been detected, and the timing is too close for the repair mechanism to be sure it wasn't causal.

It is a simple gotcha, and probably the main reason why humans get addicted to gambling. Their minds manufacture causality where there is none to find. It was the lucky 7 that won, not the fact that you lost 16 million times before and the law of chance states you probably will win at least once every once in a while. (That is Irony, just in case you thought I was negating my own argument)

So whether we are talking about SuperConsciousness, or not, there is an actual blurring of causation within the human mind.

seek some thing very sincerely. It may be a CD, cassette, or anything that you want. Sooner or later Later, Universe reorganized itself to bring that thing to you. You can watch how intelligently it brings to you. So that you will come know that there is a connecting entity between all individual. That is SUPER-CONSCIOUS. Experience is the great knowledge.

Hi Janet ,

Universal will is expressed as individual will. We are here to co-create with All That Is. Outer world is moved by Inner world.

GS: "Ah, if emotions are not 'Driven' how do they motivate to action? Please tell that pretty femaie weeping in the corner that she is not 'driven to tears' by the cutting remarks of her so called freinds."

Emotions are a complex phenomenon joining thoughts to feeling. The feelings are felt in the body. Frequently the two act as a positive feedback loop in which the thoughts reinforce the feeling and the feeling reinforces the thought. Emotions can therefore be controlled in two ways: by changing the thought or by changing the feeling. Generally the best approach is to control the thought.

Much work in psychotherapy has been done on developing techniques to assist in the process.

JW: "What I'm thinking is a blurring of cause-and-effect, within the objective reality we experience, because we have no way of understanding the realm in which the Universal will exists. Is Universal will acting simultaneously, or do we perceive it that way because it manifests in "our' time? Is Universal Will the Cause, or is our Will the cause? Probably a case-by-case basis, but--who knows for sure?"

The term 'universal will' is not clearly defined. What exactly are you talking about and how are we to know that such a thing exists. Do you mean god's will? Divine providence? Magic?

RG: "The Law of Attraction simply says that you attract into your life whatever you think(FEEL) about."

Electrons attract protons and the north pole of a magnet attracts the south pole. But who or what enforces this so-called 'law?'

RG: "Actually We are all One consciousness.Conscious,subconscious,super-conscious is consider to be three aspect of mind. But all are not subdivided actually. We made it only for simplification. Truth is all are One Consciousness. Now the Question is what we actually consider as Super-consciousness. The connecting entity between all individual.This connection is established by alternating its view point to all individual by INFINITE SPEED. Since it passes over at zero seconds, it be conscious of all view point simultaneously."

Christ's Faithful believe that men are sinners needing redemption, not some sort of god.

Men are separated from personal aspect of God but not from Universal aspect God. We are all part of it. Still we can do the meaningful work by listening to the deep within.

GS: "First of all, do you know what feelings are?"

Feelings are physical sensations. If a man is relaxed his muscles relax. He feels that in his body. If a man is angry, the opposite effect occurs, his heart speeds up; blood is diverted away from the skin to the internal organs; his muscles tense up. He feels that in his body. If someone becomes sexually excited... well we all know what that means!!

GS: "Most people can't distinguish between feelings and emotion."

Antonio Damasio in his book, ***Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain*** writes "Emotions are complex, largely automated programs of actions... the actions are complimented by a cognitive program that includes certain ideas and modes of cognition..."

~ Antonio Damasio; ***Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain;*** #5; Pantheon Books, 2010; p 109.

I do not disagree with that description, though I would focus rather on its two main elements, thought and feeling...

He goes on to describe feelings of emotion: "perceptions of what goes on in our body and mind when we are emoting."

Here again, I do not disagree with him, though I would emphasize the reality of feelings in the body rather than in the imagination. A man who is angry really does feel his body react. Take away that feeling and the emotion will disappear.

RG: "Universal will is expressed as individual will. We are here to co-create with All That Is. Outer world is moved by Inner world."

You are overgeneralizing. All the individual wills do not add up to one super-will. There is no causal relationship to bring such a thing about. Lacking any such causal relationship, all you have is your imagination.

RG: "Men are separated from personal aspect of God but not from Universal aspect God. We are all part of it. Still we can do the meaningful work by listening to the deep within."

And what is this "universal aspect of God?"

Christ's Faithful believe in three divine hypostases: the Father, His Son and Their Holy Spirit. There is nothing beyond those three, no universal aspect separate from the divine hypostases.

I certainly believe that I am not a part of god. For god has no parts. The divine hypostases are not so many parts of god, for each is all of god. So I, a mere creature, am not part of god, either.

Hi Bill,

The universal aspect of God is understood in occult knowledge which includes metaphysics, the study of magick, psychology, consciousness and enlightenment. The personal aspect of God is understood in the Bible and the salvation Gospel.

If you know about universal aspect of God and how it works, You can co-create with universe. If not, you life choice will be taken by another one who has greater awareness about universal aspect of God.

-Rajagopalan from INDIA.

RG: "The universal aspect of God is understood in occult knowledge which includes metaphysics, the study of magick [sic], psychology, consciousness and enlightenment."

(1) Psychology is the study of the mind. It can tell us nothing about god, for god transcends nature.

(2) Metaphysics, properly understood, is not occult.

(3) May god protect us from the false enlightenment from occult "magick [sic]."

Humility is a hard lesson for men, for its message is but the truth... the occult is the enemy of truth.

Bill, I was only using the term Universal Will in the context that Roberto Assagioloi used it in his book The Act of Will. I might interpret it as some mannifestation of whom I refere to as God, but I certainly don't pretend to know who or what God absolutely is. ;-)

Thank you for your post, Graeme. I so very much appreciate your remarks! Thank you for being so "raw" and honest. My forte in Psychology is more Clinical, but I am always amazed by the new things we are learning about the brain. Cognitive Science has changed the way we look at Philosophy, that's for sure. Anyone else think there's a problem with the way we interject the early philosopher's thought into our current understanding of how our brains appear to be wired?

JW: "I certainly don't pretend to know who or what God absolutely is."

Of course not. God can not be defined. The only property of godhead which we know is that god created the world. But we understand even that one property only indirectly, through knowing that the world must have been created by something we can only call, 'god.' Thus we may reason from the world which we see to the god whom we do not see.

JW: "I was only using the term Universal Will in the context that Roberto Assagioloi used it in his book The Act of Will."

I know nothing about Assagioloi, or his book.

JW: "I might interpret it as some mannifestation of whom I refere to as God."

You might interpret it that way? I suppose you might not? Is there any other interpretation that you might propose? Black magic?

I really don't know how one might interpret such a concept, unless there is some substance to which it refers. That is what I am seeking. It is not clear to me that 'universal will' identifies any particular substance. It seems to me to be the 800 pound gorilla of to the side which Assagioloi is --- perhaps --- trying to ignore.

RG: "Seek something very sincerely"..."Sooner or later"... "Universe reorganize itself to bring that to you".

You know Rajogopalan, My father used to believe just that sort of thing. He believed he had his own channel to god.

It turned out that he was dissassociating his basic Narcissistic streak, and not recognizing that he was manipulating people into doing what he wanted.

I used to cringe whenever he offered to pray for something, because I knew that because he was being narcissistic, the result would be toxic, no matter how I hoped something would work out for me.

It is part of "Dissociation" and "Magical Thinking" which have been detected as being symptoms of mental health issues, Really what it means, is that attribution for manipulating others is put off to another agent, be it God, or a dissociative personality, rather than dealing with the ego damage of admitting that you really don't have any control over things, except those that by manipulating others unfairly, you might create.

Who were you manipulating to get that CD or whatever? Did THEY think you were being fair about it?

Nothing wrong in manipulate our reality. Because Subconsciously everyone influences everyone else whether it happens knowingly or unknowingly. That happens naturally. You yourself also doing this but without awareness. Because your thinking automatically influence the reality. All other people in universe is affected by it.people reality is restructured all the time according to the decision which has been taken by everyone. So nothing wrong in that.

Thank you TJ

I was speaking to my own experience, in which My Father, (Who was a pastor, if only a lay-one) manipulated people for his own narcissistic needs, and then claimed that it was a religious effect when a "Miracle" happened. Somehow, for me at least, the "Miracle" never was much of a miracle, just more destructive interference in my life. But we can take some meaning from my experience, in that, in many cases, the most financially lucrative T.V. Pastors, have shown to be manipulative and to be feathering their own nests at the cost of their flock. It is not mine to say which pastors are actually sincerely trying to do good, but merely, to ask, if it is so easy to mistake manipulation for miracles, how can we claim a law like the law of Attraction?

In fact, I maintain, the so called Law of Attraction is more or less, disproven simply by the fact that society marginalizes a portion of the population. For these people social pressure against them, acts to limit their ability to gain. And if you are starving, wanting a CD seems trite as an example. You want food, and sure enough, the marginalization forces are working against you getting it for free, even though there are people willing to feed you were they only allowed to.

A Manipulative person would claim, Yes, I will feed you, and then insist that to get the food you had to pay lip service to their religion, and behind your back, celebrate the many "Converts" to the religion, that had been gained by the "Food Minstry", and ask for more and more donations, to cover the cost of food that they had received for free, from the Food Bank that collected overstock and store rejected food, for distribution, and asked for its own donations to do that, Then at Christmas time, ask for even more donations, to feed the poor, which are of course the same people they have been feeding, all along, a Christmas dinner.

What really got my goat was the claim that one such charity could feed a nutritious Christmas dinner for about 1/4 the cost of the actual food, without noting that the reason they could do so, was because they were heavily subsidized by other charitable groups to do the same thing.

My mother has got to the age where she is spammed by charities all asking for small donations for this and that, and amusing enough, they seem to alternate between them which one asks for Christmas dinner donations every year. Does one group not need funding every year to feed the same people? Or is it just a way of manipulating the donations so that donor fatigue is spread across multiple charities.

How much of what we think is charity, is really just manipulative forms of marginalization?

GS: "How much of what we think is charity, is really just manipulative forms of marginalization?"

Cynicism is, of course, manipulative. The cynic may believe he is simply uttering unquestionable truth, but he has his own angle on what he is doing.

So far you have failed to show me any reason to doubt that will is knowledge in action. The most you have shown is that you wish it were not so.

I would agree, of course, that super-consciousness and the so-called Law of Attraction are just wishful thinking. There must certainly be some casual unity in whatever is claimed to be a cause.

Well Bill, your belief in charity is bulletproof, I on the other hand have to live under it, call me cynical, or call me experienced, does it make a difference if what I say is born out in my life every day?

Well Bill, I haven't tried too hard to defend my doubt since it is an honest emotion, and simply means that I don't add things up the same way you do. There is no doubt that humans guide their own movements up to a point, and there is no doubt that they do so out of knowledge and that the only way they can influence the world is to flex their various muscles. The doubt lies in the emphasis, you say will is ONLY knowledge in action, and I say that it is an illusion, created by pre-conscious decisions not being available but attribution and Awareness being available to consciousness, and to the attribution mechanism by which we introspect about our actions. Libet says that instead of a will, we actually have a "WONT" that decides from options chosen pre-consciously by suppressions of the other options we don't take. If there is a difference, It's mostly one of mechanism in the end we are still mostly in control.

GS: "The doubt lies in the emphasis, you say will is ONLY knowledge in action, and I say that it is an illusion, created by pre-conscious decisions not being available but attribution and Awareness being available to consciousness, and to the attribution mechanism by which we introspect about our actions."

I do not see what you say is a difference in emphasis... for you follow up with absolute statements which leave little wiggle room.

Are you saying that sometimes men are fooled? Are you just warning that one should not be judgmental? I would agree to some extent with either position. What I don't want to do is to make ontological judgments based on something not ontological... such as an "honest emotion." Philosophy ought to be above mere emotion.

Sometimes? No Bill, I am saying that it is the nature of the Illusion that we attribute consciousness to the contextual awareness, and think that THAT is the deciding mechanism, when in fact it is the last step in selection that we cannot attribute our choice to, that is the actual causative factor. It just doesn't work the way we feel it should work, from our experience of using it. There is no sometimes about it, every time you THINK you are expressing WILL you are wrong. The net effect is the same, just the mechanism is wrong.

GS: "There is no sometimes about it, every time you THINK you are expressing WILL you are wrong."

That clearly is more than a different emphasis.

Personally it makes no sense to me that you write "There is no doubt that humans guide their own movements up to a point, and there is no doubt that they do so out of knowledge and that the only way they can influence the world is to flex their various muscles" and then claim that it is all illusion. You seem to contradict yourself.

Ah, no, Bill I am not contradicting myself, it is the illusion that is contradictory.

By linking Attribution to the Awareness, our brains give us the illusion of WILL when the actual operative mode is WON"T. By linking attribution to the last step in the process, it looks like the choice is made by the last step in the process, when in fact a significant number of steps before the last step can be shown to have already influenced the decision.

The net effect is that as an individual we make decisions and act on them, but, because it is not the LAST STEP, that crafts which decisions we make, but simply suppresses the most toxic of a much narrower group of possible actions, There is significant room for instinct and Emotion to cloud the previous steps without our conscious choice to let it. If conscious WON'T has any causal power it is after instinct and emotion have driven the mind to make particular partitions of the information available and have presented them for final choice.

It's like Ford said, "you can have any color car you want, as long as it is black" His decision not to bother with custom colors, limited the freedom of choice for a generation of car buyers. We might not know it, but, manufacturers still limit the freedom of choice often in such a way as to force us to repurchase the same things over and over again, instead of supplying what we actually want.

Consider hunger, as your body saying you can do anything you want as long as you feed me, and then reinforcing it if you fail with hunger pangs. This is the instinctual drive to keep the body fueled.

The fact that it works so good, is a clear indication that your body is influencing your thought without you being aware of it.

It has nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with architecture of the mechanisms behind the mind.

GS: "it is the illusion that is contradictory."

Now you are beginning to sound like Raja Gopalan.

GS: "By linking Attribution to the Awareness, our brains give us the illusion of WILL when the actual operative mode is WON'T."

I don't care about the details of how the brain works. I am talking about knowledge, not neurological signalling. The knowledge I am talking about is that of the whole, not that of any part. For the universe is more than matter and motion. At the very least, one must consider the form of a natural, living body. That is the knowledge I refer to.

Every *won't* is simply the negation of a *will.* But you are confusing logical negation with knowledge in action. Saying that I will not do something... caused by knowledge is to say that I will something... namely, not to do its opposite.

Computers use such negative logic all the time. It is less expensive to design computer circuits to use NAND (not AND) gates rather than designing separate AND and NOT gates. What is important is the program, not the circuitry on which it runs.

Consider the example of a man standing on a ladder holding a hammer. His enemy walks up to him. He sees his enemy and drops the hammer.

You may say that he wanted his enemy not to live so he didn't want to keep the hammer from falling on his enemy's head. Another man may say that he wanted his enemy to die and so dropped the hammer so it would hit his enemy's head.

The two statements have the same effective meaning. It is your illusion to think otherwise.

#H1-422. Will. Pages first three.

PA3-1. Graeme Smith, Jun 14, 2011 6:50 pm. 1. Searle:

@*. Thanks for information on a favorite word of mine.

2.

@*. I understand science is unlikely to be wrong, however i think a different explanation is needed. If unconscious 7 seconds precede before a conscious decision/thought, the whole period should be considered as requiredly- constituting the single thought/intention. This is different from predestination. I wonder how facilely we are concluding 7 seconds form our predestiny! We may be surprised the Will is not instantaneous, but that thought requires a duration comprising unconscious and conscious parts, need no way PREVENT it being freewill. Freewill can possibly be influenced by the past, it's neurophysiological mechanism requires predetermined routines in processing and an unanticipated duration, these are all acceptable; but rendering in to intention predetermined and preventing freewill, is, i think, over-explanation.

Participation of past/history always introduces predeterminability but unlikely predetermination. What's the inseparable other tenses for? May be not 100% freewill as we have understood so far, as usual "uncertainty" to be admitted; but sufficient freewill continues.

_______________________________________________________________

PA3-2. Bill Overcamp, Jun 14, 2011 11:21 pm.

@*. I think, predestined is here used in the sense of "not under the intentional control of and variable by" a person,

and not in the sense of "that has already occurred".

But i have to concede, in the extreme, it is possible freewill is mingle-able with destiny.

2. Will as "Knowledge in action" as opposed to "intention in action" ("intention to be in the act and acting"): What difference between?

______________________________________________________________

PA3-3. Graeme Smith, Jun 15, 2011 7:38 pm. Your continuous concern for pathologically/etiologically affected persons is admirable; we should not marginalise them; in fact, affection showed to them will be a good therapeutic agent; therefore are the social norms, i think social norms, when implemented objectively, are to take care of the protection of the affected as well as the safety of the others.

Of course if one sees that either due to degeneration or due to better understanding that social norms require improvement, one is supposed to advocate for it. That, i think, you are doing.

_____________________________________________________________

PA4-4. Janet Wise, Jun 16, 2011 6:35 pm.like.

>

@*. Thanks a psychiatric vindication for the philosophic/ethical concept of "discipline." ( but i need not be surprised; philosophy is the anticipation of science, what else it's if not.)

2. Jun 16, 2011 6:55 pm.like.

@*. Surprising, two like-able posts in a short sitting. [only my browser [IE] does not enable me to mark.]

I don't understand Universal Will, but i think i can somewhat equate it with Ethics (or ethical behavior). I think, what you have said regarding the blurring of boundaries of cause and effect, had interested me too [in this, and/or elsewhere]. I think your sentence is more an becoming-understanding [wonder], rather than a question. I think, your understanding is right.

I wonder, good understanding is so commonplace!

___________________________________________________________