So having a goal is a sign of free will? That’s interesting and something I hadn’t thought before. I will have to give it more thought. Thanks.

You speak English very well! I will have to put Kant on my to-do list.

Anyway, thanks for reading and for your thoughts. I really should learn some Kant.

Wow, you really said a lot in a small space! I don’t adhere to reductionism anymore but prefer supervenience. Is that closer to Kant’s thinking? Perhaps the universe started as a quantum fluctuation as all universes start? Perhaps a quantum fluctuation is ordinary just what reality does like as ordinary as a an American, and a universe growing out of one is like as ordinary as a smaller subclass of Americans? Now, what does that mean for free will and determinism if varieties of each of us live throughout the multiverse?

yeah. oops.

and consistent and coherent with scientific observation. It's mathematical models have very accurate predictive power.

It's consistent and coherent at least.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Anglo-American analytic philosophy's handling of ontology is lacking in how things seem or feel in a way that continental philosophy and religious texts aren't (to my estimation).

the geometric-fractal structure of spacetime, the component parts of the human brain and their respective functions...these are all evidence.

Ontology and phenomenology rarely dealt with critical thinking in the Anglo-American analytic sense
— Noah Te Stroete

That's a sentence you could write. I just don't know why you'd write it. — Terrapin Station

What I mean is, you seem to be a fan of Anglo-American analytic philosophy. Phenomenology and the corresponding ontology are continental philosophies that deal more with experiential truth than rational truth. Of course there is thinking involved in continental philosophy, as there is thinking involved in religious texts, but both are trying to get at the essence of Being. Anglo-American analytic philosophy seems to fail here (at least to my estimation).

Ontology and phenomenology rarely dealt with critical thinking in the Anglo-American analytic sense.

Spirituality has nothing to do with critical thinking. There are no good rational arguments for being spiritual. One has to feel it.

Okay. Don't buy it then.

In religious texts, these virtues must be cultivated to attain Truth (with a capital "T"). Look, you don't have to like it. You don't have to read it. It is your prerogative to comment, but I first recommend reading the Gospels and the Upanishads if you want some context. Read them. Don't read them. No skin off my nose.

Those posts don't seem to have much to do with my comment above. — Terrapin Station

They are an argument for determinism. How do they not address your comment?

"love, peace, joy, empathy, understanding, and patience"

You don't have to be spiritual to believe that these are virtues.

I refer you to my last few posts on the thread, "Fallacies of Strawson's Argument vs. Free will".

Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but the virtues listed above are good for atheists, too.

I probably shouldn't speak for Nasir, but I'll give my interpretation:

Truth with a capital "T" is different from "truth". Truth is the ultimate goal of any spiritual being, but whilst one is living in the material realm, one can only catch glimpses of ultimate Truth. One must act in the material realm where we find ourselves in this life, and whenever we act in this realm things will not be perfect as Truth is. We have to find meaning and strive to limit suffering (in Truth there is no suffering but in the material realm which isn't perfect suffering is unavoidable), to become more spirit than matter (Truth is Spirit with a capital "S", hence Nasir's use of the term "nonduality"), etc.

Logic and empiricism are good tools to understand the material realm; but love, peace, joy, empathy, understanding, and patience are needed to understand Truth.

I have no idea either. Maybe my journey will end up being a blessing. God willing.

Trial and error. If you were somehow “punished” by your peers for posting on this forum, you might decide next time that it is better to go to the store first and let your thoughts percolate. If you were “rewarded” by your peers, then you might learn to post first and delay going to the store. However, your hunger or mood might override your desire to be “rewarded” for your thoughtful posts, and you would go to the store first.

How would one know when one has reached it? And how does one sustain living in Truth once it’s reached? It seems to me it takes constant vigilance.

It occurred to me that perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you saying that some people believe they are “saved” when they only possess a portion of Truth? Do you believe you know Truth?

If I am correct, then one of your objections to determinism was that there would be no evolutionary advantage to perceiving competing options or choices. I believe the evolutionary advantage is just to be able to learn and make more successful choices in the future. I believe the universe compels me to make a particular decision, but the mental exercise is stored in memory so I can determine better decisions in the future. Based on this memory, I can learn to be more successful. However, any particular decision is compelled by my previous memories, my current mood, and whatever basic need I have to satisfy.

Thanks! Will do

I have to see a therapist starting in the near future because I am using the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation to get training to return to work. I believe they will be using CBT on me.

My psychiatrist says my filter, or my left prefrontal cortex, is broken or damaged (I have schizoaffective disorder), so do I have free will? (He wasn’t clear if that has to do with my mental illness diagnosis or if that is something extra.) I almost always if not always feel compelled to do the things I do.

My last hypothesis claimed that consciousness wasn’t the primary substance but rather a substance on par with matter. How it interacts with matter is that matter is the substance that holds consciousness. Now, these are just thoughts I’ve been having that haven’t been fully developed. I’m open to all arguments, but you have mischaracterized the last hypothesis.

I agree. You can be saved but still at times deviate from the Light of Truth. The material world’s temptations sometimes catch us off guard. Thanks for sharing!

I really enjoyed your OP. I’ll have to give it more thought. Thanks for sharing!

That’s very interesting.

You are entitled to your beliefs as am I. I am open to a free will argument, but so far I haven’t been satisfied by any.

Look up “probability calculation,” then tell me what’s more likely, viz. that I’m the Flying Sphagetti Monster or you’re incorrigible.

I don’t think you’re serious. I think you’re trolling us

It’s as likely that I am the flying spaghetti monster as that drinking clean water will kill you.

“Skepticism...any way around it?!”

The only way around it is to get a Chapter 51 on the Skeptic.

No I’m serious. I really believe that you are sick

I suggest you seek out a psychiatrist immediately. You could be a harm to yourself or others.

How would a brain in a vat hurt anyone or someone being tricked by an evil demon hurt anyone?

That’s ridiculous nonsense, and I don’t have time for this nonsense. How would a brain in a vat hurt anyone?