Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post Reply
Jdjr
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Jdjr »

IvanD wrote:
IvanD:

Free will

1. Reality could be a digital system indeed – I do not have any problem with that assumption.
2. I do not have a problem with the assumption that our universe might be just one of a large number of reality frames and that the whole thing (the LCS) is structured the way Tom describes either.
3. There simply is no such thing as “free will”:
4. If this is a probabilistic reality – indeed one possible interpretation of quantum physics – then the system produces all the time statistical patterns (“information”) on a micro level. And our mental processes would be fundamentally based on those statistical patterns. What “entropy” is then to be reduced there?
5. Well, I will grant you that for some reason the system – as I mentioned already – might be interested to increase its information density, which would mean that it would strive towards deterministic patterns. But why it should want that (and how it would work) is absolutely unclear. And the system’s wish to do so would be – ironically – also fundamentally based on its own underlying probabilistic patterns.
6. Let’s say my avatar here is being operated by a consciousness that is outside this reality frame (I am perfectly familiar with this MBT assumption and it is a coherent one!). My operating consciousness would still not have anything like “free will”. Its functioning would still be a process that consists of either deterministic (causation) patterns, probabilistic patterns, or random acts. None of those possibilities can be best described as “free will”… We are talking here about universally applying logic – whether digital reality or not.
7. The system could have both determinism and randomness. The processing of the system could be a mixture of determinism and randomness (which is to say that part of the changes of state do not happen causally, but randomly). But how does this get you “free will”? And if there is something we do not understand yet in this context, what could it theoretically be?
8. I will offer you what I have heard many people offer as definition of “free will” in the context of such discussions. It goes roughly like that: “’Free will’ is the freedom to make choices based on your own mental processing – without the influence of coercive outside forces.” In other words, as long as you are not somehow coerced to decide something, you have a more or less narrow space for own decision making.
9. This definition (and general way of thinking of it) simply does not work. Here is why. If your act of choice making was completely “free” of prior causation, then it would be random. If it was based on causation (which is to say part of a causal chain of events in your mind – a causal mental process), then it would be deterministic. And if your mental process that led to a particular choice of yours was a mixture of both determinism/causality and randomness – it would still not be “free will”. And if your mental process constitutes probabilistic patterns – then that is what it is: probabilistic patterns. None of those possibilities can be fittingly described as “free will”…
10. Except perhaps if you equate “free will” with randomness, which is to say mental activity that is “free” of prior causation. But I don’t think that is what people mean by “free will”.
I equate “free will” with randomness and probabilities. I consider randomness and probability to be synonymous absent evidence to the contrary.

Probable answer: “Free will operates in all units of consciousness. The [Man] Avatar operates within that degree. Its constrained by time and space. …..Genetic heritage [for example] must bring about question[s] involving free will and determinism and the nature of reasoning itself. Reasoning is the result of mental or psychic processes functioning in a space time context and lack of available knowledge. It depends upon conscious thinking unique to human problem solving methods. Thoughts are mental activity sealed to space time terms like mental edifices built to certain dimensions only. Your thoughts make you human. You reason out your position otherwise free will would have no meaning in a physical framework. The reasoning mind is necessary, effective and suitable for the physical existence and free will.”
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

Yesterday, I listened to the full YouTube video of Sam Harris explaining why the notion of free will is a non-starter. Here, below, are a couple of questions I posted in response. No response so far:


Julie Baxter:
22 hours ago
The question from microphone 6 was proving Sam's point, surely? Doesn't the heart go where it will? Can we decide/choose to love someone? Why didn't Sam see that?

Julie Baxter:
23 hours ago
Surely what Sam is describing is behaviourism?
Jdjr
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Jdjr »

Harris has noted in his numerous talks and on his podcast that his argument against free will does not rely on the findings from neuroscience, but is instead focused mainly on the logical incoherency of the possibility of free will. In one of his guest appearances on the Joe Rogan Podcast, Harris says, "Nothing hinges on [the recent experiments in neuroscience]. Even if..the decision of neural activity in the brain that gave you the decision and your subjective feeling of having decided...were coincident, even if there was no time lag...it still is coming out of nowhere in a sense for you subjectively. You're still not in control of it. It's still being caused by events that you didn't cause.~Neuroscience of free will Wikipedia

it still is coming out of nowhere in a sense for you subjectively
Sainbury wrote:There can be no argument about free will here past an explanation of how it applies to MBT.

8. Free will is the ability of a Conscious awareness to freely make or not make any of the choices in one’s decision space. Making a free will choice is rooted in the whole Consciousness, not just the intellectual part of a dysfunctional consciousness.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8713&hilit=definitions

Free will is one of the basic principles of MBT. Without consciousness, free will, and time there is no MBT theory. So there is no arguing about those things. If you cannot accept those basic principles then it's time to move on.
A review of Harris' Wiki reveals that he lived 11 years with Tibetan monks in Tibet. He speaks to the concept of consciousness. He participates in meditation. There is an "off the record" MBT
answer for his "belief" that there is no free will. It does not reveal itself in the above quote. Ask Campbell.

The other aspect related to the subject: Is the discussion had from the perspective of the avatar hallucinating a consciousness or from the IUOC hallucinating a VR.
Delak
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:27 am
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Delak »

The IvanD person says it’s philosophically all but decided there is no free will. Then list Kant. Unless I am missing something Kant critique of pure reason is maybe the best argument for Free-will there is.

Sam Harris is a materialist and in that model it’s easy to show there is no free will. But on the contrary in the philosophy of mathematics it’s rather conclusive and dominantly agreed that Platonism or intuitionism best explains our abilities and our derivation of our mathematics.
VirtualBrain
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by VirtualBrain »

Mathematics is, as Tom has said, the logic of quantity. What does the number of neurons in a brain have to do with free will other than perhaps defining a limited decision space?

The material brain defines the material decision space. The non physical mind defines the non physical decision space. Both are in an eternal state of evolution. Keep in mind ;) there are no neurons, only virtual neurons.

Theoretically, there are no limits to free will but free will is limited within time unto which the state of consciousness evolution(physical/non physical) has positioned itself.

What does Kant say vs. Sam? Something similar?
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

Something of a non sequitur: Have any of you noticed how much Tom borrows from Edgar Cayce? Especially in terms of free will, learning, and growing spiritually throughout multiple lifetimes which can be examined via the akashic records?

I'm aware that these notions are far from limited to the work of Cayce. But right now I'm reading 'Edgar Cayce on Mastering Your Spiritual Growth' by Kevin J. Todeschi and the underlying similarity between Cayce and Campbell is striking.
VirtualBrain
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by VirtualBrain »

jbaxter wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:07 am Something of a non sequitur: Have any of you noticed how much Tom borrows from Edgar Cayce? Especially in terms of free will, learning, and growing spiritually throughout multiple lifetimes which can be examined via the akashic records?

I'm aware that these notions are far from limited to the work of Cayce. But right now I'm reading 'Edgar Cayce on Mastering Your Spiritual Growth' by Kevin J. Todeschi and the underlying similarity between Cayce and Campbell is striking.
Many models have a lot in common.
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

VirtualBrain wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:32 am
jbaxter wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:07 am Something of a non sequitur: Have any of you noticed how much Tom borrows from Edgar Cayce? Especially in terms of free will, learning, and growing spiritually throughout multiple lifetimes which can be examined via the akashic records?

I'm aware that these notions are far from limited to the work of Cayce. But right now I'm reading 'Edgar Cayce on Mastering Your Spiritual Growth' by Kevin J. Todeschi and the underlying similarity between Cayce and Campbell is striking.
Many models have a lot in common.
Yes, of course. I understand that. But has Tom said anything at all about Cayce? What he's saying (as reported in this book) is identical to Tom's MBT . . . . . . except for the direct God references and lack of up-to-date virtual reality perspective.
VirtualBrain
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:44 am
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by VirtualBrain »

jbaxter wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:19 am
VirtualBrain wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:32 am
jbaxter wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:07 am Something of a non sequitur: Have any of you noticed how much Tom borrows from Edgar Cayce? Especially in terms of free will, learning, and growing spiritually throughout multiple lifetimes which can be examined via the akashic records?

I'm aware that these notions are far from limited to the work of Cayce. But right now I'm reading 'Edgar Cayce on Mastering Your Spiritual Growth' by Kevin J. Todeschi and the underlying similarity between Cayce and Campbell is striking.
Many models have a lot in common.
Yes, of course. I understand that. But has Tom said anything at all about Cayce? What he's saying (as reported in this book) is identical to Tom's MBT . . . . . . except for the direct God references and lack of up-to-date virtual reality perspective.
Not specifically as far as I’m aware. You could ask him it about it in the fireside chat if you want.
Jdjr
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Jdjr »

Thanks for reminding me about Cayce. While perusing a new format for bookmarks, I realized I had bookmarked a Cayce video on the origins of mankind. It is about 30 minutes long. There was an aspect of my consciousness exploration I wondered about, and I found Cayce's explanation in the video. There is a section on free will:


Cayce on the origins of mankind
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

Jdjr wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:54 am Thanks for reminding me about Cayce. While perusing a new format for bookmarks, I realized I had bookmarked a Cayce video on the origins of mankind. It is about 30 minutes long. There was an aspect of my consciousness exploration I wondered about, and I found Cayce's explanation in the video. There is a section on free will:


Cayce on the origins of mankind
What do you make of this, Jdjr?
Jdjr
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Jdjr »

jbaxter wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:24 pm What do you make of this, Jdjr?
We know that many of these subjective interpretations of reality are similar.
Baxter wrote:What [Cayce] he's saying (as reported in this book) is identical to Tom's MBT . . . . . . except for the direct God references and lack of up-to-date virtual reality perspective
It is no surprise to me that the subjective observations/reports of Campbell and Cayce run parallel. We know that Campbell discloses less than 20% of his understanding of reality in his theory. We know that he considers Seth to be a teacher. This then lends credibility to the Seth myth of creation. Cayce's creation myth ie origins of mankind runs parallel with Seth. I accept the reported reality of all three. The God references are of course a distinct metaphorical use and also reflect Cayce's religious filter. The "lack of up-to-date virtual reality perspective" likely represents the other 80% Campbell holds "close to the vest." Perhaps it can be found in the Seth material.
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

Jdjr wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:28 pm
jbaxter wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:24 pm What do you make of this, Jdjr?
We know that many of these subjective interpretations of reality are similar.
Baxter wrote:What [Cayce] he's saying (as reported in this book) is identical to Tom's MBT . . . . . . except for the direct God references and lack of up-to-date virtual reality perspective
It is no surprise to me that the subjective observations/reports of Campbell and Cayce run parallel. We know that Campbell discloses less than 20% of his understanding of reality in his theory. We know that he considers Seth to be a teacher. This then lends credibility to the Seth myth of creation. Cayce's creation myth ie origins of mankind runs parallel with Seth. I accept the reported reality of all three. The God references are of course a distinct metaphorical use and also reflect Cayce's religious filter. The "lack of up-to-date virtual reality perspective" likely represents the other 80% Campbell holds "close to the vest." Perhaps it can be found in the Seth material.
Thanks for the video link, Jdjr!

I intuitively prefer Cayce's analysis to Campbell's because it somehow doesn't seem quite so rigid and impersonal.

FWIW, I've always felt that the character we are in each lifetime represents the totality of our being to date and that the soul can present as any of the earlier characters. In just the same way, if I meet up with an old friend I haven't seen since childhood, I'm immediately transported, mentally, to that time in my life and yet remain conscious of my more evolved self in the present.

I don't believe that any personality is lost (or simply buried in the akashic records). Rather, it seems to me that each remains a living entity that can interact freely with all other personalities with whom there was a relationship in any given lifetime. In other words, my feeling is that we are all truly multidimensional; unrestrained by the factor of time. What I don't believe is that we are ever the automatons that Tom describes, i.e: animated files in the akashic database.

Just my two-pennorth!
Jdjr
Power Poster
Power Poster
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by Jdjr »

jbaxter wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:12 am
I intuitively prefer Cayce's analysis to Campbell's because it somehow doesn't seem quite so rigid and impersonal.

FWIW, I've always felt that the character we are in each lifetime represents the totality of our being to date and that the soul can present as any of the earlier characters. In just the same way, if I meet up with an old friend I haven't seen since childhood, I'm immediately transported, mentally, to that time in my life and yet remain conscious of my more evolved self in the present.

I don't believe that any personality is lost (or simply buried in the akashic records). Rather, it seems to me that each remains a living entity that can interact freely with all other personalities with whom there was a relationship in any given lifetime. In other words, my feeling is that we are all truly multidimensional; unrestrained by the factor of time. What I don't believe is that we are ever the automatons that Tom describes, i.e: animated files in the akashic database.

Just my two-pennorth!
Here is some contrast:

Campbell states: upon death the experience packet for your conscious personality life experience returns to the IUOC/OVERSOUL. The conscious personality then becomes part of the actualized past data base.

Cayce states: the conscious personality returns to the soul after death. It becomes a facet of soul.

Monika Renz and Peter Fenwick report on their respective study of the death transition:

During the death transition there is a transformation of perception. Normal everyday consciousness of perception (conscious personality) disappears. You lose your personality, then you are in the NOW; no past, no future. You become more widely consciousness and merge with reality.
User avatar
jbaxter
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:57 am
Location: North West England
Contact:

Re: Why the MBT does not survive close scrutiny...

Post by jbaxter »

Jdjr wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 11:57 am
jbaxter wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:12 am
I intuitively prefer Cayce's analysis to Campbell's because it somehow doesn't seem quite so rigid and impersonal.

FWIW, I've always felt that the character we are in each lifetime represents the totality of our being to date and that the soul can present as any of the earlier characters. In just the same way, if I meet up with an old friend I haven't seen since childhood, I'm immediately transported, mentally, to that time in my life and yet remain conscious of my more evolved self in the present.

I don't believe that any personality is lost (or simply buried in the akashic records). Rather, it seems to me that each remains a living entity that can interact freely with all other personalities with whom there was a relationship in any given lifetime. In other words, my feeling is that we are all truly multidimensional; unrestrained by the factor of time. What I don't believe is that we are ever the automatons that Tom describes, i.e: animated files in the akashic database.

Just my two-pennorth!
Here is some contrast:

Campbell states: upon death the experience packet for your conscious personality life experience returns to the IUOC/OVERSOUL. The conscious personality then becomes part of the actualized past data base.

Cayce states: the conscious personality returns to the soul after death. It becomes a facet of soul.

Monika Renz and Peter Fenwick report on their respective study of the death transition:

During the death transition there is a transformation of perception. Normal everyday consciousness of perception (conscious personality) disappears. You lose your personality, then you are in the NOW; no past, no future. You become more widely consciousness and merge with reality.
"Cayce states: the conscious personality returns to the soul after death. It becomes a facet of soul."

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Just as our childhood personality is still available to memory and conscious awareness, we retain the essence of each personality that we have assumed during each of our past incarnations.

All the personalities we ever were eventually comprise one BIG personality that represents the culmination of the soul's growth. Hence the soul cannot forget, or lose contact with, anyone who has been a part of that journey; nor can they lose the love that was shared.
Post Reply

Return to “Rants - Negative Opinion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests