A phone conversation with a muslim missionary

citizenzen said:
Sorry Oat, I'm more of this kind of Buddhist...
The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.

- Thich Nhat Hanh, in Zen Keys
​
That is what free will is to me. I've been given this opportunity to learn what I can, using the tools that I have. Speculating on things that can't be known just don't interest me. It doesn't get the job done.
Click to expand...
Nothing to be sorry about. We all have to find the way that suits us, that's why the Buddha taught different methods and different views as he was well aware of the diversity of his followers.
 
OAT said:
sems nyid - chittata, mind 1) mind itself, mind essence, nature of mind, mind nature, mind as such, ultimate nature of mind, true nature of mind itself, mind-as-such. Syn {ngo bo rig pa}. 2) the mind [ry]

In Tibetan, no one use "sems" to mean "sem nyid". "Sems" is always used to refer to the ordinary grasping mind and that has to be a dependent arising.
Click to expand...
The "nyid" is a suffix here like English "-ness": "sems nyid" is the characteristic which makes "sems" be "sems"; nothing is called "sems" unless it has the characteristic of "sems nyid". Like: "triangle-ness" is the possession of three sides; nothing is called a "triangle" unless it has that characteristic; the possession of three sides is the definition of what it is to be a triangle. Similarly, sems-nyid is the definition of what it is to be "sems".
 
bob x said:
The "nyid" is a suffix here like English "-ness": "sems nyid" is the characteristic which makes "sems" be "sems"; nothing is called "sems" unless it has the characteristic of "sems nyid". Like: "triangle-ness" is the possession of three sides; nothing is called a "triangle" unless it has that characteristic; the possession of three sides is the definition of what it is to be a triangle. Similarly, sems-nyid is the definition of what it is to be "sems".
Click to expand...
Hi Bob, let us just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 
It is one thing for you to disagree with the Tibetan position; but for you to claim that the Tibetans are saying the exact opposite of what they are saying is something else.
 
bob x said:
It is one thing for you to disagree with the Tibetan position; but for you to claim that the Tibetans are saying the exact opposite of what they are saying is something else.
Click to expand...
Bob, I follow Tibetan Buddhism and know a little Tibetan to have some confidence in what I've stated.
 
bob x said:
It is one thing for you to disagree with the Tibetan position; but for you to claim that the Tibetans are saying the exact opposite of what they are saying is something else.
Click to expand...
I suggest you check with someone who is familiar with Tibetan Buddhist texts and Tibetan language to see if what I've stated about "sems" and "sems nyid" are correct or not. I am prepared to be corrected if I was wrong.
 
citizenzen said:
That is what free will is to me.
Click to expand...

We certainly have a will alright.
But in no way is it "free."
We will ALWAYS choose whatever a combination of influences CAUSES us to choose. We can NEVER choose what we DO NOT want.

Because this is true, it is also true that all of the choices we made in the past were the ONLY ones we could have made at the time.

No one has the power of contrary choice.
By that I mean, no one can choose what they actually don't want.
The fact that they choose it demonstrates that they want it, at least slightly more than what they did not choose.

It is illogical to call our will "free" since the choices we make are dictated by the combination of influences to which our brains and bodies are exposed.
 
bob x said:
but for you to claim that the Tibetans are saying the exact opposite of what they are saying is something else.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Wouldn't be much different than your claims regarding "empirical facts" on this thread.
 
c0de said:
:rolleyes:

Wouldn't be much different than your claims regarding "empirical facts" on this thread.
Click to expand...

Try and add to the discussion, please, c0de - we're here to discuss topics, not berate individuals thanks.
 
rodgertutt said:
We will ALWAYS choose whatever a combination of influences CAUSES us to choose. We can NEVER choose what we DO NOT want.
Click to expand...

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.

Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.​


Sorry Roger, until you can do better than that you're argument won't have any credence... at least with me.
 
citizenzen said:
Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.

Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.
​
Sorry Roger, until you can do better than that you're argument won't have any credence... at least with me.
Click to expand...

Why I believe it is NOT circular reasoning.

Our choice STARTS (straight line, no circle) with an influence to choose something.

It CONTINUES with weighing out other influences that contribute to our decision.

It ENDS with us making a choice that is the product of all of the influences we have considered. (end of line)

There is NO possibility that we can choose any differenty than the combined influences dictate.

Therefore there is no "free" will.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rodgertutt said:
Why I believe it is NOT circular reasoning.

Our choice STARTS (straight line, no circle) with an influence to choose something.

It CONTINUES with weighing out other influences that contribute to our decision.

It ENDS with us making a choice that is the product of all of the influences we have considered. (end of line)

There is NO possibility that we can choose any differenty than the combined influences dictate.

Therefore there is no "free" will.
Click to expand...

RT, did you read the first line of the definition of circular reasoning?

Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms.​

That is all you're doing. You are simply stating that...

"We choose what we choose because we chose it."​

It is meaningless. Sorry. And now I am in danger of repeating my message, ad nauseum.

Unless something new is offered on this subject, I am finished.
 
citizenzen said:
RT, did you read the first line of the definition of circular reasoning?
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms.
​
That is all you're doing. You are simply stating that...
"We choose what we choose because we chose it."
​
It is meaningless. Sorry. And now I am in danger of repeating my message, ad nauseum.

Unless something new is offered on this subject, I am finished.
Click to expand...

No, we don't choose what we choose because we choose it.

We choose what we choose because all influences considered, we choose whatever the combination of considered influences cause us to choose.

And that will be the case every time we make a choice.

Therefore our will can never be "free."
 
OAT said:
I suggest you check with someone who is familiar with Tibetan Buddhist texts and Tibetan language to see if what I've stated about "sems" and "sems nyid" are correct or not. I am prepared to be corrected if I was wrong.
Click to expand...
I studied with Khenpo Karthar Rinpoche of Karma Kagyud lineage, and have a book "Gentle Whispers" by Khenpo-la's teacher Kalu Rinpoche, who was highly respected. I will try to dig up the book (ever since I moved, everything I own is buried where I can't find it) and cite appropriate passages: he discusses this at length.
 
c0de said:
The landmark experiments Libet conducted in 1983 proved that our unconscious mind makes the decisions, and our conscious mind just becomes aware of it.
Click to expand...
I have no disagreement with these results. In Eastern language: the "ego" does not make the decisions; the "unconditioned mind" does, and the "ego" simply perceives them and, so to speak, takes credit for them.
But what I am asserting, contrary to rodgertutt's position, is that the decisions themselves are not caused solely by the material conditions. If an electron is in a state where it has 90% chance of "A" and 10% chance of "B", then the "A" influences are "the strongest influence", and yet might not prevail. In those cases where the electron chooses "B", a deterministic view is that there MUST be some other influence which outweighs the "A" in this case; and I don't disagree, except to point out that this other influence is completely independent of all the material conditions (and this is how I am using the term "unconditioned mind", whether or not I am semantically correct in interpreting the Tibetan). Rodgertutt thinks that the sum total of the incoming perceptions, the memories stored within the brain, the information-processing that takes place within the brain, in short, all the materially-encoded data, is sufficient, always, to fix the outcome; and this is just not the case.
 
bob x said:
In those cases where the electron chooses "B", a deterministic view is that there MUST be some other influence which outweighs the "A" in this case; and I don't disagree, except to point out that this other influence is completely independent of all the material conditions
Click to expand...

But that is a contradiction: how can any influence which is "completely independent" of the material, influence the material (i.e. the electron)?

Look, you can either accept determinism (all out), or you accept that random behavior prevails at the quantum level (both interpretations are common). But you can NOT accept determinism and then say the deterministic influences are materially independent. Such a view is unscientific (not to mention dualistic and contradictory.)
 
.

p.s.

Here is the interview with John S. Bell, who of course needs no introduction.
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things."


  1. ^ BBC Radio interview with Paul Davies, 1985
Superdeterminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
As you can see, a completely deterministic (zero free will) view is much less problematic than all others. Of course it is not easy to accept, as humans are predisposed to assuming they have free will. As Bell points out he himself is deeply disturbed by it.
 
bob x said:
But what I am asserting, contrary to rodgertutt's position, is that the decisions themselves are not caused solely by the material conditions.
Click to expand...

Not caused solely by materal conditions, but also by the influence of internal preference.

bob x said:
Rodgertutt thinks that the sum total of the incoming perceptions, the memories stored within the brain, the information-processing that takes place within the brain, in short, all the materially-encoded data, is sufficient, always, to fix the outcome; and this is just not the case.
Click to expand...

The combined influence of internal preference, plus external persuasive considerations will CAUSE all choices to occur.

IMO this cannot be perceive as "free" will.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rodgertutt said:
The combined influence of internal preference, plus external persuasive considerations will CAUSE all choices to occur.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with this statement. It's just the next step where you take it too far...

"Every choice we have ever made was the only one we could have made at the time."​

I am about to go to lunch. Certain conditions limit the choices that I can make. I will deliberate upon the choices and ultimately settle on one of them. But I could have chosen any one of those available to me. This notion that the choice I settled upon was the only one I could have made at that time is just a ridiculous notion.

It is on the face of it illogical. I have six choices. I choose one. The fact that I chose one does not change the fact that I started with six choices and could have chosen any one.

Here's an experiment...

Pick a number from one to ten.

Was the number you chose the only number you could have chosen?

Rogertutt will have you believe that it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top