Free Choice or Chioce by Evolution of Consciousness?

[JosephM]

I thought this short writing of mine might provoke some interesting dialog that all might have opportunity to benefit from.....

The majority of human beings are mostly convinced that they are the author of their thoughts, choices and therefore their destiny. There is no doubt human beings make choices. The question is; Are those choices free choices or inevitable choices that are not free but predisposed by a limited context? If they are limited, then by definition, the choice is not free choice, but an inevitable choice that is bound or enslaved by ones present level of consciousness and the circumstances by which that event occurs.

Let’s examine this closer. When a five year old child, who is not hungry, is presented with a choice of his favorite flavored lollipop or a bowl of salad; which will he choose? Circumstances being such, greater than 99 out of a hundred will choose the lollipop. Of course, if the child is sick, he may choose to forgo either choice. Still, the choice is made and one makes the choice limited to his or her intellect, programming, desires, and surrounding circumstances. In effect, though the choice may not be known to others, it is the only selection the individual can make at that time.

With grown-ups, this process of choice becomes more complicated yet it is not much different. The particular choice one makes will be bound and limited to ones understanding or perception, desires, variable conditions, previous programming and tendencies. As consciousness evolves one hopefully makes better choices but in all cases those choices are still bound by ones imperfect programming, understanding and desires.

While life presents itself with a myriad of choices, most seem to take place automatically coming from the unconscious mind. The choices are greatly affected by ones in-born intelligence level, the family, group, society, and national programming by which one is brought up in. And, in addition, it is modified by the millions of mini-events and variety of daily perceptions of experiences and external stimuli that present themselves to the discriminating mind. Choice then is based, for the most part in the mind and its outcome is inevitable based on all of the above which is uniquely different in each individual. Yet though the data upon which the choice is made is different in each individual at any given time, ones choice taken is really the only choice that one could make at that time.

Why is this seemingly linguistic slight of hand even important? Why is understanding the concept I am writing about important for one to understand in the context given? What does it matter whether one considers it free choice or just choice?

At the present level of understanding in this mind, it is very beneficial to have a clear understanding at what is being implied. Understanding and awareness is key to the evolution of consciousness. Understanding that choices are not free in the sense that one might think of them helps us to empathize with our fellow frail human beings whom are in the same boat. This truth helps us release our anger and un-forgiveness of others, who through ignorance oppose themselves and releases our compassion for them.

Cherie Carter-Scott said: “Anger makes you smaller while forgiveness forces you to grow beyond what you were.” Mahatma Gandhi said “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong”

Jesus is recorded saying, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Emphasis is on ignorance because they know not what they do is a reason. One may think those suicide bombers, warmongers, liars, religious fanatics, those that are hateful and those that risk their lives for thrill or meaningless causes have free choice in the matter. Jesus didn’t think so. If they could be any different at any particular point in time by their personal choice then they would be. Their choices are a product of the evolution of their consciousness just as is yours. Any statement such as ‘they should have’ or ‘could have’ and the like are nothing more than hypothetical and have no existence in reality.

Even the Buddha might agree as this is the essence of his teachings based on the Pali Canon recognized by Buddhist scholars as the oldest record of what the Buddha actually taught:

"Absolute changeless permanent reality, the unconditioned, itself alone is,

all else has always been, is, and always will be just a state of make-believe fiction,

a state of delusion worn like a costume with multiple fabricated viewpoints,
with each self-sustaining itself in a self-perpetuated state of self-ignorance,
until each decides to come to closure through self-enlightenment and self-awakening" ​

​

His teachings point out that man operates in a make believe state of delusion worn like a costume with multiple fabricated viewpoints. This makes him incapable of free choice because his choice is determined by his attachments and ignorance. Through his endless variety of choices and circumstances, all founded in self-ignorance, one eventually through conscious evolution, stumbles upon the truth and begins a meaningful journey to self-enlightenment.

This of course is through no credit to oneself as it is an innate progression and destiny of all consciousness. (Though not spelled out in his teaching above, it is the present understanding as spoken by this mind) The self actualization by which ones true being embarks on the path to enlightenment is not by free choice but by consent of the will. All choices then are bound by the level of consciousness and understanding that exists at the time of choice. Only a fully enlightened or awakened being with full understanding of context would have free choice but then it disappears as choice. This is because choice itself is a non-existent reality.

This understanding may seem harsh, different than yours or difficult to understand. That is okay because even ones choice to believe what is written or not is bound by ones context of consciousness. Therefore, you have no free choice in the matter and only if you were predisposed to believe or your context has changed since you read this can you choose to believe what is written here.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[Snoopy]

Hi,

I was of the opinion that I do not accept determinism as the mechanism to explain events, whether sub-atomic or human behaviour. But then I thought I was not intending submitting this post and yet I have. So where does this leave me?

s.

 

[JosephM]

Hi,

I was of the opinion that I do not accept determinism as the mechanism to explain events, whether sub-atomic or human behaviour. But then I thought I was not intending submitting this post and yet I have. So where does this leave me?

s.

Hi Snoopy,

I imagine it puts you or leaves you in the same boat as all the rest of us.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[Snoopy]

Ah, but does it? I think I am conscious, but are you or is anyone else? Are other animals? Are plants? Are rocks? How do I know? Can I know?
Isn't philosophy fun??!!

s.

 

[JosephM]

Ah, but does it? I think I am conscious, but are you or is anyone else? Are other animals? Are plants? Are rocks? How do I know? Can I know?
Isn't philosophy fun??!!

s.

Dear Snoopy,

It not philosophy my dear Snoopy. Its life and there is no doubt. Yes, You can know. No need to play with words or believe others. You are indeed conscious and I am present with you right now. Kind of like 'yourSelf' talking to 'yourSelf'. And you know better than to ask me for proof. We 'know' each other too well for that senario. If you didn't resist so much, you wouldn't even need me to do the talking.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[Snoopy]

Dear Snoopy,

It not philosophy my dear Snoopy. Its life and there is no doubt. Yes, You can know. No need to play with words or believe others. You are indeed conscious and I am present with you right now. Kind of like 'yourSelf' talking to 'yourSelf'. And you know better than to ask me for proof. We 'know' each other too well for that senario. If you didn't resist so much, you wouldn't even need me to do the talking.

Love in Christ,
JM

Hi,

Well this kind of stuff seems to the substance of the philosophy book I'm presently reading!
And I certainly don't know you too well; in fact we haven't even exchanged birthday cards!

s.

 

[JosephM]

Hi,

Well this kind of stuff seems to the substance of the philosophy book I'm presently reading!
And I certainly don't know you too well; in fact we haven't even exchanged birthday cards!

s.

Your correct in that we haven't even exchanged birthday cards but in a sense, I do know you quite well. Personally I am not a philosophy fan as one can find all the difference in the world in between seeking to 'knowing about' something and in 'knowing'. The first (philosophy and theology) leads to endless lifetimes of studying and merely ending up confused and discouraged. The second implies subjective experience which is complete in itself and leaves nothing to be known. Words seem unnecessary and there is nothing to be added. 'Knowing about' on the otherhand means to accumulate facts. In 'knowing', all facts disappear and there is none to be known. Perhaps what I am writing is unclear but then again, words at their best are inherrently fallacious representations of reality because of their limitations.

Best Wishes,
Love in Christ,
JM

 

[Paladin]

very well spoken JosephM. I could not agree more with your point of view. If our old friend Abogodo Del Diablo were still around he might refer to what you call choice a "Hobsons Choice" Indeed, if one were fully awakened like the great avatars one might be said to have a choice because then they could see down through all the layers and levels of conventional versus absolute reality, though even then to harmonize with anything but the absolute would be pure madness. This is, I am afraid, where most of us live, in madness. But to some degree one or more of us takes a moment, breathes in and out and in a split second of timelessness goes home. I believe this would be known as satori in Zen? Your short writing is clear and to the point, thank you so much!
I bow to the Buddha in you.

Peace

 

[JosephM]

(snip)
This is, I am afraid, where most of us live, in madness. But to some degree one or more of us takes a moment, breathes in and out and in a split second of timelessness goes home. I believe this would be known as satori in Zen? Your short writing is clear and to the point, thank you so much!
I bow to the Buddha in you.

Peace

Greetings Paladin,
Thank you for your kind words. Madness? .....
It does seem to be that way and it is I who should be bowing to you.
Gassho,
JM

 

[cyberpi]

So when you drive a car down the road, do you feel that you are pre-determined to be driving the car? Do you not feel an immense sense of power over your car, your body, or your time?

When I was in HS over several decades ago I debated with myself the determinism versus free will. I figured then that I could not prove it one way or another... but that I might as well take responsibility for my actions and if I am wrong then none of it matters. If I do not have free will (a soul), then I am responsible for nothing. Without a free will, it is an illusion that I exist and my fate is either pre-determined or determined by someone else.

Now days I would tackle the argument of determinism versus free will by the subjects of control theory, information theory, communication theory, and thermodynamics... but to a person who has not studied these subjects it would take a long time. Equations in those subjects can be written in the sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology or in the colleges of engineering: electrical, mechanical, chemical, aero and astro, industrial, computer, etc... They are to me universal languages that are more fundamental ways to organize understanding. I think I could describe these subjects in laymans terms and convey some things to convince a person... or open their eyes... but it would not amount to a proof.

To prove the free-will: Something has to come out of a person that did NOT go in. If every particle could be tracked then it would be seen that something is not obeying the 'cause and effect'... but that can not be seen. To measure anything requires using energy, which either destroys or alters. Besides there are far too many particles to track. But it is a requirement of free will that information comes out of a person that did not go in. It can be measured that control loops can be opened and closed by a person... but so can animals. Whether it is pre-programmed by genetics, programmed by environment, or programmed by an alledged free will is unknown. Something is opening and closing switches. The thermodynamics can be revealing. A person can sit and turn up or decrease the rate of energy usage by controlling thoughts, and by extension muscles. Controlling energy usage (fire) is the act of will. Energy consumption can be measured. Interestingly a person can increase order in their mind by expending energy and discharging entropy... Schrodinger's cat, but a cat that eats food and poops the entropy that was taken out of the box. Similarly, all of the miracles in the Gospels of the bible could follow the scientific laws of thermodynamics... but NOT the generic understanding of billiard ball particle 'cause and effect'. Relativity and quantum physics (entanglement) has hosed generic understandings too, but it is also outside the scope of this audience.

Another way I see it is in Frankenstein surgery. People with epilepsy have had the corpus collosum cut and those people can walk, drive a car, and behave normal until you cover one eye or ear. Then you can see the disability to communicate from one lobe to the other. Interestingly they learn to overcome by speaking what one eye sees so that both ears hear, and communicate lobe to lobe. I personally have also learned that I can learn and see things faster by voicing my own thoughts. From the control theory / thermodynamics / communication theory standpoint it is impossible for two severed lobes of the brain to coordinate; however it may be that there is massive communication through the pineal or cortex. Still, there is a distribution / locality problem in which parts of the brain would fight for control, especially when people have had massive parts removed or severed. Yet those people are able to adapt in ways that do appear to defy.

The other way I see is by one's early memories. It is subjective except to the individual, meaning each individual has to be their own scientist. But I remember when my eyes were first opened at a young age sitting in a high chair. I don't think I was born with a soul... when you see a baby open their eyes wide and tilt their head or slump over... that is what I remember when I was a baby in a high-chair with family looking on. It was like leaving a place that was warm, I remember a few words that were said to me, and I remember my thoughts. It was brief. I know what I was here to learn from my parents, and it was like losing something that I had and gaining a new experience for the first time. The eyes were not perfect and had colors and tunnel vision. I have no conscious memory prior to that. If I meditate I can pull other memories out of childhood but they are much later, like after I learned some words. There are a couple of other visual experiences where I did not interact though. The thing is, my thoughts that one moment had words to them before the words were learned. Concepts before the concepts could have been learned. That has been true for other things in my life... the thoughts were there and then the words to describe the thoughts evolved. Either the memory grew on its own and merged in my dreams, or I thought about the memories in my life and altered them, or I have fabricated memories that did not really exist. I have generally NOT had a problem with fabricating anything... and I know when I guess... but I have felt deja-vu sometimes as if a situation was prepped in a dream or in the thoughts prior. But, each person has to work with their own memories. Mine in no way constitute a proof of anything to anyone, but each individual has their own memories and consciousness to learn from.

From Christianity and Islam it is realized that a person's actions are a convolution of what a person senses and what a person wills. That is, a person is NOT defiled by what a person sees or hears (senses), but a person is defiled by what a person says or does (action). The difference being that which a person wills.

Finally I'd say that biofeedback is a powerful tool to learning more about one-self. Obtaining measurement from oneself is itself a paradox. A feedback loop can be closed on itself. Imagine performing brain surgery on yourself and poking at memories, or cutting some out. Alternatively, imagine having an NMRI realtime while watching one's own memories. I'd say there may be an easy path there for an individual to prove to themselves that they are not the body or the brain. Maybe not.

I think the drug route is a serious mistake.

 

[JosephM]

So when you drive a car down the road, do you feel that you are pre-determined to be driving the car? Do you not feel an immense sense of power over your car, your body, or your time?

(snip)

Hi Cyberpi,

Thanks for taking the time to present your perspectives on the subject. As you say, it cannot be proved either way to another. Your reasoning is very logical and well presented for the time you spent. Even if I could convince you by reasoning, it would offer you no proof. Truth is self revealing and self evident requiring no proof when the blocks to its realization are removed. The answering of one question seems to merely open up a dozen more and the mind is limited for a myriad of reasons. Therefore the answer must be beyond both. (Mind and reason)

The answer to your question is No, I have been driving down the road and neither feel predetermined to be driving the car nor an immense sense of power over my car, mind or body. There is just an 'it' driving down the road. No more, no less. Though I am aware of the scenery from the viewpoint of the 'it', my location can best be described in words as 'nowhere' yet at the same time since the universe has become so small and insignificant you could say I was 'everywhere'.

Thanks again for your comments,
Love in christ,
JM

 

[JosephM]

When I was in HS over several decades ago I debated with myself the determinism versus free will. I figured then that I could not prove it one way or another... but that I might as well take responsibility for my actions and if I am wrong then none of it matters. If I do not have free will (a soul), then I am responsible for nothing. Without a free will, it is an illusion that I exist and my fate is either pre-determined or determined by someone else.

Cyberpi,

As an afterthought of your post, Couldn't a concept of determinism also include the evolution of consciousness to the point that you take responsibility for your actions. It seems a natural determined progression to me. ie: One whose life revolves around Guilt projects blame on others. As one progresses through Fear, Desire, Anger and Pride one enters the areas of consciousness that are more supportive of life such as Courage and Willingness with which one will naturally by choice determined by ones evolution of consciousness to assume responsibilities for ones actions. Assuming responsibility therefore does still not impute "free choice" but rather only that a determined progression of will has been reached that will continue its progression to the only choice that one can really make toward realization of ones true reality.

Perhaps, when one reaches this realization, one sees that the illusory "I" choices one made were determined by the totality of creation and were at the time the only choice that one could under the circumstances really make. The concept of 'free choice' then was only a concept created in mind at a particular point in its evolution that is now seen for what it is. Truth being changeless and One sees that nothing has really evolved except everchanging illusory realities as in a drama or movie of life.

Just an after thought for your contemplation,

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[Snoopy]

Hi JosephM,

Considering you're not a fan of philosophy you're not averse to engaging in it! (but then it may be impossible to avoid).

I’m intrigued; in what sense do you know me quite well? It can’t be from the sense of the inherently fallacious representations of my posts, so what does that leave?

And regarding me, what do you know (quite well)?

s.

 

[JosephM]

Hi JosephM,

Considering you're not a fan of philosophy you're not averse to engaging in it! (but then it may be impossible to avoid).

I’m intrigued; in what sense do you know me quite well? It can’t be from the sense of the inherently fallacious representations of my posts, so what does that leave?

And regarding me, what do you know (quite well)?

s.

Hello again Snoopy,

Being in a body and not yet detached from this world, it seems at times is used to communicate that which actually requires no communications except to the illusory nature of this reality. So the game is played out. 'Engaged' might be an overkill as I have no victory or loss in sight. You nor anyone else cannot be 'wrong' when discussing your view with me here as I see that it is your perspective of reality at this moment and therefore by definition cannot be 'wrong'. I have merely asked you questions to stimulate you to be backed up against an invisible barrier that will leave you with absolutely no belief one way or the other for at least one moment so that you might then for a moment 'see' beyond belief that which I perceive is most close to you now.

I stay out of philosophy forums and must say I have neither read nor know you from your posts. (except where you may have posted by mine) I know you quite well only from the sense that you and I are one and the same. We are sharing this illusory reality even as you read this.

As you allow me, I get a glimpse of your reality and I see that you are close to a breakthrough in your self created barrier. You sense something in my words but that is not where the 'sensing' is coming from. It is 'within you', always was and even now is and can never be truly separate except in a construct of mind.

Peace,
JM

 

[cyberpi]

Cyberpi,

As an afterthought of your post, Couldn't a concept of determinism also include the evolution of consciousness to the point that you take responsibility for your actions. It seems a natural determined progression to me. ie: One whose life revolves around Guilt projects blame on others. As one progresses through Fear, Desire, Anger and Pride one enters the areas of consciousness that are more supportive of life such as Courage and Willingness with which one will naturally by choice determined by ones evolution of consciousness to assume responsibilities for ones actions. Assuming responsibility therefore does still not impute "free choice" but rather only that a determined progression of will has been reached that will continue its progression to the only choice that one can really make toward realization of ones true reality.

Perhaps, when one reaches this realization, one sees that the illusory "I" choices one made were determined by the totality of creation and were at the time the only choice that one could under the circumstances really make. The concept of 'free choice' then was only a concept created in mind at a particular point in its evolution that is now seen for what it is. Truth being changeless and One sees that nothing has really evolved except everchanging illusory realities as in a drama or movie of life.

Just an after thought for your contemplation,

Love in Christ,
JM

A plant does not evolve from its seed... it grows from it like something that unfolds. Growth came from what was already there in the input... the seed. Growth is locally determined. If a plant evolves, it evolves from an uncorrelated input (pseudo-random) like a cosmic ray, which was NOT locally determined. Evolution requires something locally unnatural and non-determined. If the cosmic ray was accounted for as part of the genes of the entire world, then evolution is NOT evolution... it is just the growth of world. But growth requires a known seed. Thus evolution and determinism are at odds with each other. Either evolution is really deterministic without the knowledge of the initial state, or there is a true random variable and thus nothing is deterministic. The next step of evolution requires selectivity by something external, which means that it just adapted to something external. So whether you are thinking deterministic growth or evolution by random variable and selectivity, both came from something external.

Whereas I have stated that choice requires something coming out that did not go in. I am effected by the state of the flesh and I am effected by the environment, but I unaturally select from each. I can produce pseudo-random numbers that are uncorrelated from anything. I can employ a routine to crank on a seeded number to say for certain whether it is prime or not. I can choose between the two. I am above both evolution and growth, employing both as mere toys. How? I don't know. If I were only a growing plant, then I am not responsible for my genes. If I were only an evolving entity, then I am not responsible for the cosmic ray that slapped me into thinking something new, or the environment that selected me. But if I have a choice between the two, then I am responsible and only then do I care about my decision. I feel that I have that choice. I can not prove it to you. If I am wrong then I could really care less because I never had a choice. Either it was pre-determined and not my responsibility, or it was random and not my responsibility, or it was my choice and I am responsible. To think otherwise is to hold me responsible for something that came externally.

 

[JosephM]

A plant does not evolve from its seed... it grows from it like something that unfolds. Growth came from what was already there in the input... the seed. Growth is locally determined. If a plant evolves, it evolves from an uncorrelated input (pseudo-random) like a cosmic ray, which was NOT locally determined. Evolution requires something locally unnatural and non-determined. If the cosmic ray was accounted for as part of the genes of the entire world, then evolution is NOT evolution... it is just the growth of world. But growth requires a known seed. Thus evolution and determinism are at odds with each other. Either evolution is really deterministic without the knowledge of the initial state, or there is a true random variable and thus nothing is deterministic. The next step of evolution requires selectivity by something external, which means that it just adapted to something external. So whether you are thinking deterministic growth or evolution by random variable and selectivity, both came from something external.

Is not Evolution merely the unfolding of Creation in a concept we call time and space? Is not the plant that grows dependent on the totality of the rest of the universe? Does it not require more than 'local' conditions? Is not every single thing needed to cooperate for that growth to take place. Sun, wind, space, particles in the air, soil, insects, temperature, terrain etc etc? Can growth come from what is already in the input (the seed) without interdependence on All that Is?

Whereas I have stated that choice requires something coming out that did not go in. I am effected by the state of the flesh and I am effected by the environment, but I unaturally select from each. I can produce pseudo-random numbers that are uncorrelated from anything. I can employ a routine to crank on a seeded number to say for certain whether it is prime or not. I can choose between the two. I am above both evolution and growth, employing both as mere toys.

What is natural that you select unaturally? Is it not obviously natural to you?
Are you really above both evolution and growth? Can you change one speck of dust from out of its place without the cooperation of All that Is? Can you indeed produce random numbers uncorrelated from ANYTHING as if there were no basis? Does not even the things we once thought were created from chaos have basis that we are still discovering through science? Did you make yourself from nothing? Do not all things in nature have order? Is that flesh and bones and mind of yours any more than a creature subject to All that Is and has not your world of reality that you base such notions on proved itself full of false perceptions time and time again so as to create a reality that would be as different from others as numerous as the sand in the sea is? If so, then where is truth? Perhaps it lies not in perception which has proven in history to be in error more times than not.

How? I don't know. If I were only a growing plant, then I am not responsible for my genes. If I were only an evolving entity, then I am not responsible for the cosmic ray that slapped me into thinking something new, or the environment that selected me. But if I have a choice between the two, then I am responsible and only then do I care about my decision. I feel that I have that choice. I can not prove it to you. If I am wrong then I could really care less because I never had a choice. Either it was pre-determined and not my responsibility, or it was random and not my responsibility, or it was my choice and I am responsible. To think otherwise is to hold me responsible for something that came externally.

I hold you responsible for nothing. Perhaps to do so would be error on my part. There are actions and there are consequences. Perhaps 'right' and 'wrong ' are only self created concepts. Perhaps your 'either' it was ''this or 'that' is nothing but a conundrum you have made. It seems to me that 'ego' and 'separateness' would dictate either way. At one stage it absolves itself of responsibility and at another it takes full responsibility. Perhaps it is illusory and the position not even applicable to true reality.

Thanks for your intersting response,
Love in christ,
JM

 

[JosephM]

So as not to detract from my original purpose of post by additional philosophical statements, I would like to re-present the implication of the first post's understanding....


At the present level of understanding in this mind, it is very beneficial to have a clear understanding at what is being implied. Understanding and awareness is key to the evolution of consciousness. Understanding that choices are not free in the sense that one might think of them helps us to empathize with our fellow frail human beings whom are in the same boat. This truth helps us release our anger and un-forgiveness of others, who through ignorance oppose themselves and releases our compassion for them.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[Snoopy]

I have merely asked you questions to stimulate you to be backed up against an invisible barrier that will leave you with absolutely no belief one way or the other for at least one moment so that you might then for a moment 'see' beyond belief that which I perceive is most close to you now.
As you allow me, I get a glimpse of your reality and I see that you are close to a breakthrough in your self created barrier. You sense something in my words but that is not where the 'sensing' is coming from. It is 'within you', always was and even now is and can never be truly separate except in a construct of mind.
JM

Hi,

Barriers and resistance seem to be cropping up a lot. Would you care to elaborate?

s.

 

[Caimanson]

Whereas I have stated that choice requires something coming out that did not go in. I am effected by the state of the flesh and I am effected by the environment, but I unaturally select from each. I can produce pseudo-random numbers that are uncorrelated from anything. I can employ a routine to crank on a seeded number to say for certain whether it is prime or not. I can choose between the two. I am above both evolution and growth, employing both as mere toys. How? I don't know. If I were only a growing plant, then I am not responsible for my genes. If I were only an evolving entity, then I am not responsible for the cosmic ray that slapped me into thinking something new, or the environment that selected me. But if I have a choice between the two, then I am responsible and only then do I care about my decision. I feel that I have that choice. I can not prove it to you. If I am wrong then I could really care less because I never had a choice. Either it was pre-determined and not my responsibility, or it was random and not my responsibility, or it was my choice and I am responsible. To think otherwise is to hold me responsible for something that came externally.

It's a very interesting debate.
I tend to agree with the concept that free will exists, but only in our concious self awareness, otherwise it is just plain illusion.
In the scale of things, say within the square meter of my existence, yes I do have some form of free will, in the larger scale of things it seems to me I am a lab rat exercising my free will within the fixed boundaries of a maze.

Cyberpi, I think that by adding responsibility into the equation you are distorting the outcome your reasoning.
Responsibility is a human construct that relies on consciousness and awareness of self and others. For good or bad we are heavily programmed by society and culture, and perhaps genes. Even if we did have a spirit independent from the material, isn't that preordained and affected by a higher entity?

The only reason we say a rock does not have responsibility, is because in our eyes we cannot see consciousness and capacity for willed action. But is conciousness another illusion?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

At the present level of understanding in this mind, it is very beneficial to have a clear understanding at what is being implied. Understanding and awareness is key to the evolution of consciousness. Understanding that choices are not free in the sense that one might think of them helps us to empathize with our fellow frail human beings whom are in the same boat. This truth helps us release our anger and un-forgiveness of others, who through ignorance oppose themselves and releases our compassion for them.

Exactly right! I can empathise with others because I know that I'm being driven by my programming in a fashion similar to them. But...We always have choices, whether we're aware of them or not. And, you really can't control anything until you can control yourself. That's basic. So yeah, I empathise. "There but for the grace of God...". But that doesn't excuse anything, and it doesn't mean that we can't act contrary to our animal nature, or whatever you want to call it. We may not ever be aware of all possible choices in a given situation, but we can make an informed choice--even a hard choice.

Chris
[/FONT]