Christopher Wallis | Bernardo Kastrup: Free will is an egoic story

An excerpt from • Christopher Wallis | B...
You can join Christopher and Bernardo on a live call this coming March 2024 - details of this an all other events: at adventuresinawareness.com/
If you would like to support future content, contributions are greatly appreciated at:
Patreon: / adventuresinawareness
In the UK: pay.gocardless.com/AL00048KYK...
One-off PayPal donations: www.paypal.com/paypalme/adven...

[@birgithaan1036]

It would be so interesting to listen to a conversation between BK en Sapolsky.

[@PaulaDTozer]

A couple of years ago I followed my thoughts regarding free will into this same territory. Super cool conversation!

[@adventuresinawareness]

Cool to hear!

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

❤❤THE FREE WILL Before we talk about whether or not Free Will exists, we must first clarify what Free Will is, but also what a human being is and what element within us possesses this power called Will or Free Will. If we do not do this, we will not really be able to think effectively and ultimately to understand and realize whether Free Will really exists or not. Furthermore, only a very advanced person or even better, a fully developed spiritual person, could really explore this question, as they are well aware of the workings of the mind at all levels, have transcended the mind and are aware of its divine nature.

[@johnmiller0000]

The will of nature put this in my feed. The opening few sentences express exactly what I have come to experience. That sent me on a mini journey that landed me at Amazon to purchase Christopher's book :)

[@adventuresinawareness]

He'll be pleased to hear that I'm sure! ❤️

[@user-hy9nh4yk3p]

I have never felt the need to analyse 'free will'. There is will - in out thinking and actions - so we use this - to get things done. If one cannot achieve success - take it - that the Special Will - is working - and that is final. This has always worked for moi. Fare thee well. PS: love your interesting - revolutionary title - it makes one think - about this - again.

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

❤❤ Human beings are not only bio machines. But also, Spirit or Consciousness. And consciousness by nature is free. So, depending on how much spirituality developed one is will exercise his free Will.😮

[@Sambasue]

But is there a separate spiritually developed person to do so?

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

SWAMI SIVANANDA ON FREE WILL Every act produces in the performer a double effect, one in the inner nature in the form of a tendency, good or bad, and the other in the form of fruit, reward or punishment. The past Karma influences the present life in two ways, first in the form of character or tendency internally and as fate externally. If you do an action, it creates a Samskara or subtle impression in the subconscious mind or Chitta. The Samskara causes a tendency. Tendency develops into a habit by repetition of the actions. The habit manifests as character. Character develops into destiny. This is the order: Samskara, tendency, habit, character, and destiny. The faculty of choosing is termed will. This will is free by its own nature. Man has a free will by his birthright. It asserts itself at every moment of our lives. Bear in mind that every small act that you perform is the resultant of triple conjoint forces, viz., freewill, character and fate. The sphere of activity varies according to the nature of your Karma and the character formed by it. If you have done virtuous actions in your previous birth and if you have developed an exemplary character, your will have a wider field of activity and vice versa. Determinism is the doctrine that all things, including the will, are determined (limited) by causes. This is the converse of free will. It is otherwise known as necessitarianism. Man has power to choose between the alternatives which fate brings before him. In choosing between them he may either follow his tendencies produced by his past actions or struggle against them. The will of a man is ever free. The arguments which are advanced by determinists in saying that human will is determined are not sound and tenable; they fall to the ground. Dear friends! Man is the master of his destiny. Wake up now from the deep slumber of ignorance. Never become a fatalist. Think rightly. Act rightly. Lead a virtuous life. Never hurt the feelings of others. Mould your character. Purify your mind. Concentrate. Thou art Nitya Mukta Purusha. Tat Tvam Asi-Thou art That.

[@nancyg3590]

Brilliant talk. ❤

[@adventuresinawareness]

Thank you!

[@thenonphysical]

The whirlpool is a bad analogy when you want to discuss free will. For example, Bernardo Kastrup thinks we don't have free will, and I think I do have free will. So we are not exactly the same, we are not the same water. Maybe we can say that we are both liquid, like we are both subsets of consciousness and we have similar potentials. I do agree with this last thought. I am a blue color liquid in the ocean and I do think that I have free will, Bernardo is a yellow liquid in the ocean. If he changes his mind and think he has free will, then he might turn green :).

[@adventuresinawareness]

What are you free to choose, with your free will? Could you choose not to believe in free will?

[@thenonphysical]

@@adventuresinawareness When you want to analyze free will, it's good to know that free will has nothing to do with conditions. You can exert free will despite conditions. Talking about conditions in free will analysis is a strawman.

[@Sambasue]

There are apparent choices but no chooser.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@adventuresinawareness there is a Rush song about that lol

[@user-ru5xz3lz9c]

Free will = Free money = manifestation

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

❤❤ A human being is not only his body and his mind but also consciousness, so man is not just a doing of nature. If we take a human being only as physical mental being we lose the correct perspective and we end to false conclusions. All great spiritual traditions say that a human being is essentially and primarily Consciousness. It is only because of ignorance that identifies himself with the body and the mind and fails to realise his spiritual Identity. So, as consciousness we have free will, but because of menta, emotional and intellectual conditioning we cannot excersie our free will.

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

❤❤DETERMINISM vs FREE WILL Bernard's idea that the determinism of nature is inevitably imposed upon us is fallacious, for we are not only a physical, mental and intellectual being, but also a spiritual being. The spirit always remains beyond the influences of nature, including the body, mind and intellect, and has the power to influence nature, i.e., the body, mind, intellect and world................... Therefore, the exercise of free will is not equal for all human beings, because they are not in the same state of Consciousness and equally liberated from the lower powers of nature. More precisely, exercising more or less our free will depends on how much or how little we identify ourselves with the body, mind and intellect and how clearly, deeply and firmly we are connected with our divine essence. SO WE CANNOT SPEAK OF FREE WILL IN GENERAL FOR ALL, SINCE WE ARE NOT ALL IN THE SAME STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

[@goran586]

What if "free will" is an experiential phenomenon, which, like the experience of space-time, is a cognitive representation that has a survival advantage. A projection of what is a necessity in the mind of the One.

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

❤❤Free will means that I can decide or choose something (idea or action) without that choice being imposed, determined or influenced by any factor other than my Consciousness. So, to the extent that I am able to decide without being conditioned or confined by external influences or limitations I am exercising more or less my free will. xxxxxxxx An AI answered me: Theoretically, if you could make decisions entirely uninfluenced by any external factors, some might consider it an expression of pure free will. However, achieving complete independence from all influences is a challenging concept, and philosophical debates continue on the extent of true autonomy in decision-making.

[@thenonphysical]

No, free will is not that. Free will is separate from influences, conditions. You don't test free will with an action of choosing to eat bread, because you are conditioned by being hungry. In free will research you remove any conditioning. Tests are simple motion of hands, left, right, etc. Nothing that is attached to any condition. You can test free will just by choosing between a 0 and a 1. An entity without free will would be forced to follow a criteria and its decision couldn't be any other way. They are wrong, we don't tell our story. Well, I should say, I don't, because I can only be sure about my free will, other beings may be determined, they may be NPCs (non player characters). Bernardo Kastrup, Christopher Wallis, can you freely choose between a 0 and a 1? What is the difference between how you choose between a 0 and a 1 and how an entity with free will (even if hypothetical) chooses?

[@thenonphysical]

You can test free will just by choosing between a 0 and a 1. An entity without free will would be forced to follow a criteria and its decision couldn't be any other way. They are wrong, we don't tell our story. Well, I should say, I don't, because I can only be sure about my free will, other beings may be determined, they may be NPCs (non player characters). Bernardo Kastrup, Christopher Wallis, can you freely choose between a 0 and a 1? Are you NPCs of MAL? What is the difference between how you choose between a 0 and a 1 and how an entity with free will (even if hypothetical) chooses?

[@nathanryan12]

The choosing between 0 and 1 experiment only shows that in some cases one is unable to produce or discern reasons for one’s actions. One’s choice appears to one to have been arbitrary, that is all.

[@gosoprano]

So, Bernardo is saying that he does not have agency.

[@atmannityananda-autognosia]

❤❤ "The statement 'The agent is a doing' is not quite correct, for Mr. Bernard seems to be ignorant of whether there is an agent and what this agent really is. There is considerable confusion among modern Western spiritual teachers or scientists regarding the nature of the ego and of human nature in general. For example, they deny the existence of the ego, which is evidently a component within our psyche. Based on this misinformation, they come to various conclusions. The question is, how can these conclusions be accurate if they are based on a false concept?"

[@ryanashfyre464]

The problem I have w/ Bernardo's whirlpool analogy is that a whirlpool is qualitatively different from what we term an 'individual' in that it's just an act of nature like the wind blowing. There's no intention or feeling behind it, so why on earth should we compare the two in discussing free will? Are we really resorting in making people the equivalent of rocks to try and make a point now? Look, we tend to make mountains out of mole hills in discussing free will because we let ourselves get caught up in theoretical abstraction because we don't have an agreed upon definition of what "free will" actually is. What would my definition then be? Simply the capacity for an entity to, in principle, be able to make at least 2 different choices in a given instance. For example, instead of using the word "example" just now I could've used "instance" instead. "For instance, instead of the word..." Is there any argument to say that this could not have happened? Of course not. The most anyone could pursue here is a degree of likelihood (fair enough) which doesn't extend to a categorical denial of the capacity itself - therefore "free will" exists in a hierarchial sense w/ increasing degrees of freedom allowing the aforementioned entity more choices according to their surroundings and intentionality at any given time.

[@xmathmanx]

With any analogy you can point out that the analogy isn't perfect, but we know this already

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@xmathmanx Yes, but any analogy is itself supposed to be good enough that it serves as a respectable pointer to what's being talked about. If the whirlpool analogy isn't particularly apt (and I obvsly argue that it isn't), then shouldn't it be discarded for something better?

[@xmathmanx]

@@ryanashfyre464 on what basis can you expect that anything SHOULD be better than it is? Given that everything COULD be better?

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@xmathmanx So you're saying we should settle for inadequacy... just 'cause? We always strive for being better than we were. That's how we've always operated and always will - and the idea that we should just *settle* isn't an argument, it's an appeal to being a loser.

[@gosoprano]

I agree. I was expecting better from both. Very poor analogy. We are information systems that make decisions in a different way from one another. Besides, they should state how to falsify free will. They ignore nor they talk on the falsifiability of free will.

[@thenonphysical]

Bernardo Kastrup. It doesn't matter "where" that entity with free will is. What matters is if whether it has free will or not. This can be falsified. You can believe in your analogy of the whirlpool, but if it doesn't fit the evidence, it's worthless. MAL acts the way MAL acts, not the way you want it to act to defend your model. Fit your model with the evidence.

[@silentbullet2023]

two people zooming online is an irrefutable act of free will amidst a random universe.

[@xmathmanx]

It has been refuted for those who understand the refutation

[@user-ru5xz3lz9c]

Free will happening in Palestine and Ukraine! 😅😮

[@CYBERLink-ph8vl]

We have free will. Period. There is no doubt in it. But confusion happens when free will is mistaken to free choices. We have free will but not free choice. We are like beggers who are not allowed to choose.

[@alexandrosfilth7042]

We are allowed to choose but the conditions and environment have been usurped by a few to enslave the many to prevent the many from killing the few when they find out the truth

[@iannovak5223]

If our choices are just macro manifestations of micro interactions of atoms in the Brain, how are YOU the one choosing?

[@hosoiarchives4858]

These are some confused people

[@bn8682]

Utilizing my free will and discernment, as a spiritual being somewhat independent of the material nature - temporary material environment, it's clear you are both very confused. It's actually painful to watch you both, being so stuck in your heads, with your limited mind and intellect trying to box in reality and consciousness. My free will called it quits about 4 min in. You say a whirlpool has no free will, that's correct - because water is a material element, and does not possess consciousness. First you may want to study what is matter, and what is spirit, with the understanding that consciousness is the symptom of life, which is spiritual by nature. Please consider what is the difference between a living and dead body? The difference is the spirit and it's attendant consciousness, are no longer present in the physical vessel. That spark of spirit/consciousness has an independent agency constitutionally, being spark of the Source of all spirit, consciousness and even matter. Do you want to deny that life has consciousness, which includes a personality making choices? That seems to be your idea, but if individuality has no real existence or value, why should anyone waste their valuable time, listing to you two ramble on with your disconnected garden variety speculations on non-duality / Budduist doctrine? In your world, your personal options don't really have any value - judging by your own standards. Yet you choose, with free will, to post your observations online for the world. If free will does not exist, it would mean the same if you posted your thoughts, or not, so why did you bother? Is your ego completely dissolved, and you are acting in complete harmony with the universe at every moment, acting as an agent of universal free will, and none of your own? Either way, you are personally acting, in some capacity. Please don't try to kill your valuable, spiritual individuality with a ultimately painful type of spiritual by-pass, which leaves you alone, confused, and still not satisfied. Bhagavad Gita As It Is, a great reference to clearly explain spiritual and material energies/realities, and how they are distinct and interactive - sometimes appearing to overlap as one, for conditioned souls, such as ourselves. One definition of knowledge, is understanding what it matter, what is spirit, and who is the controller of both. The Gita describes the inconceivable personality of Godhead as the source of all material and spiritual worlds - and that we are eternal, frag-mental sparks of that Supreme Source/Soul, being one is spiritual quality, but of limited agency quantity-wise; we are not all-powerful. One of the features of the inconceivable Absolute, is the ability to personally reveal some portion of absolute knowledge and reality, within the heart of a seeking and receptive soul. Divine revelation, benefits each wondering spirit, far more than intellectual gymnastics and theoretical dogma. Wishing you all the best.

[@gosoprano]

Totally agree. I thought they were better than this. Very poor. No talk about the falsifiability of free will.

[@bornatona3954]

Sorry ....you are fantaser using word salads That's your choice

[@gosoprano]

Up until watching this video I thought BK was very intelligent. Not anymore.

[@adventuresinawareness]

Lots of intelligent people didn't believe in free will, or thought the very concept nonsensical. From mystics like Ramana Maharshi, psychologists like Benjamin Libet to scientists like Einstein: "I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human being, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to an invisible tune, intoned in the distance by a mysterious player."

[@gosoprano]

@@adventuresinawareness And they are all wrong.

[@gosoprano]

@@adventuresinawareness How do you falsify free will? If you think you don't have free will, how does an entity with free will chooses between a 0 and a 1 different from you? That question can also go to Bernardo Kastrup. To falsify free will you should have something to compare with, you should define what an entity with free will is supposed to do regarding choices. You two can do better!

[@ArlindoPhilosophicalArtist]

@@adventuresinawareness I think Claudio makes a good point. If the claim is that there is no free will, where is the description of free will to compare it to? What would it look like if it existed? Unless you can demonstrate how it is impossible as a reality. With the concept of MAL, there may be free will after all because MAL conceives the universe illusion that we perceive and we are also MAL. The 'invisible forces' of the universe have no real causal power let alone generate mind.

[@adventuresinawareness]

​@@gosoprano You can't falsify something that doesn't exist. For example, you can't falsify a unicorn, a flying spaghetti monster etc. The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists to both define it, and then prove it. Sam Harris's book Free Will or other longer videos with Bernardo would be more comprehensive, although its easier to see it for oneself through introspection: try and choose you next thought.