reply to post by sled735
I try to balance these two perspectives. On one side, we have science. We have rigorous methods for proving things. Karl Popper taught us that things
cannot be proved, but only disproved. Should I then live this way? Should I accept the premise that ALL THINGS are rendered true or false by this
method? Or, perhaps, is it only relevant to apply the method to discrete things, and not to the system as a whole, since, as the philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein wrote, something within a system cannot pass judgement on the system (taken as a whole) in itself. It's a contradiction. You would need
to be OUTSIDE the system to apply logic to it.
So how - sorry for my language - the #, am I led from my thought, something I was thinking, to an event in the physical world, at precisely the right
moment, to hear the exact thing I'm thinking about, which is actually very meaningful to me. How does someone explain that? Coincidence? Chaos? How
can anyone plausibly say that, when almost every person has experienced a synchroncity. They aren't that rare. Their frequent occurrence in the
meaningful way that they appear is beyond probability.
I honestly feel like punching those scientists who so arrogantly pronounce that "nope...No free will, no transcendent realm".."only science will
lead us". It is so utterly extreme. It ignores important evidences like synchroncities, NDE's, psychic knowledge, etc. Taken together, these subject
contradict our myopic idea for how the world works. In reality, there's a level of mind that interacts with all minds. At en even higher level, this
very physical world might be nothing more than a projected hologram - if you will - of an astral reality, which in turn conforms to the form of our
thoughts and feelings. The microcosm (man) macrocosm (world) metaphysical distinction made by so many religious systems appears to be a fundamentally
I'm sorry for any irritation. I just finished reading a chapter in the Anatomy of Violence (by Adrian Raine) where he "sadly" breaks the truth to
his obviously dumb readers, sorry, theres no such thing as Free will - its a mere mirage. And whats really pathetic is the examples he gave. The
reason I picked his book up and read it is not because I have an interest in neuroscience, saw a picture of a brain, and thought, cool, a neuroscience
book. No, Mr. professor of psychiatry informs his unenlightened readers that they all had some morbid fascination with violence, or something like
that, for why they picked up his book. Even though I, a reader, had no such thoughts, and could not with any honesty admit to the presence of any of
those thoughts. My "social agent" was different. I find neuroscience interesting. Oh. And If I chose to stop reading the book, I am dubbed no more
than a shill of my "bolshie brain" that makes defiant when challenged.
In any case, his examples are really beside the point. My ability to "impose" will upon my body - to jettison an action when it's thought, and
choose another, implies the presence of a causal agent. And no, It strains credulity to argue that my ability to "defy" one thought for another is
the "bolshie brain" in motion. And even then, what does that imply? This self against itself? This decider? It's far too simplistic to say that
biology and environment determine behavior. Biology and environment are deterministic factors, but they work against the presence of a Free Will. Yes,
it can be severely constrained. Sometimes, it's a mere fraction of a percent - so long as it remains ignorant of itself. But once it gains
understanding, it gains in awareness of it's freedom. It has the freedom, for instance, to take a stance towards its own suffering. To choose
meaning. So long as the intermediate brain antenna is working fine, the self can freely will the life it wants to live.
Synchroncity, is it has any meaning, is definitely there to remind us of the mystery beyond ourselves. It's a shame more scientists don't have the
humility to recognize it.