Free Will Discussion



.. future


This issue is both serious and not serious.. Just kidding..

Let me remind you.  You are living in the free-est country in the universe.

Remember not to contradict yourself.  Unless it’s in the interest of a free-er argument.

The truth may be that freedom is inescapable, even in death.  And that’s the really scary part.

Anyway never mind.


Some people have the luxury of actually not caring whether we have free will or not, and still arguing one way or the other.

But maybe that’s a curse, or maybe it’s a subconscious preparation for the inevitability of death by giving up physical freedom before you get there.  I hope these people still exercise freely.  Or it’s a yielding to fear, accepting that not knowing means never knowing, and being paralyzed from making a choice to usefully discern determinisms // without first resisting the consideration of a consistent/continuous presence of absolute freedom beyond all forms of particular ideals. //


“What we have now is the freedom which attends decadence, or the decadence which attends freedom..”


Some people fear breaking down this problem logically, because once they start, they feel they will have to carry the argument to the end.  The end which may be infinite.

Who says they have to think about it?  And why should they be able to answer the question?  Is it even framed fairly?

The more reality freedom may have, the more time it will take a mind to consider its full/true existence.

Maybe I’ll commit the rest of my life to deciding whether or not freedom really exists..  I’ll only need infinitely many lifetimes to achieve this, unless it was an illusion the whole time. //  It could take a finite amount of time to delineate all causal flows(leaving out the extremely distant past, which may or may not be irrelevant), but possibly an infinite amount of time to map all of their connections to the future.  Which means it couldn’t be done unless it was already being done, by a willing and infinite mind.


There is an implicit agreement between those who disbelieve free will and those who believe it.  They both agree that something called “Infinity” would have to be an integral part of the immediate physical cosmos and the mind of creatures, especially humans.  And then the believers are challenged to prove Infinity is “real” and disbelievers are challenged to prove it’s not real, or that its possible conceptions are limited to it’s reality as just an unimaginable mathematical concept.  It’s certainly not irrelevant.  // Otherwise it would be easier to assume that our choices were in fact inescapably limited by their starting point, and physical contexts are ultimately not transcendable.  But perhaps the nature of mind is that it must transcend matter, or else it simply is matter.  And I’m never sure what “simply matter” is, especially when it’s very complex.  //  Otherwise the reality of will really may seem like a beast clawing its way up an invisible mountain.


This may be an offensive question, but I probably mean no offense by asking it.

Which is gayer?  To believe in God?  Or to literally believe you have no free will?

Depending on how you wanna look at it, they both seem pretty gay.  To believe their opposites, also pretty gay.

So the only rational conclusion, people are a bunch of gay idiots, or we’re free.



Source Quotes from freewill Free Will search in video backup folder

Source Quotes from Name of God File notes


Michio Kaku: Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate

4:00 ish to ending — take all to text

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Consciousness is a mathematical pattern – Max Tegmark at TEDxCambridge 2014

Terence McKenna True Hallucinations “Say What Does it Mean” AudioBook Section 17

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

place terence mckenna transcription text here


If we are ever to know, in order to truly know whether we have free will or not, we would have to choose to know.


What was the first entity that was conscious?  Was it free?  Could it commit suicide?  Was it free to be conscious or unconscious?  Was it forced to be more conscious than it wished to be?  Was it exactly as conscious as it was functionally limited to be?  Could it become more conscious?  What was the context of its will and any possible purposes?

Assuming all consciousness speaks, in some “language” to itself, Consciousness says, “Here Now is What is Important.  I am the purpose which is itself.  To know is to be.  I am that I am.”


Is a brain necessary to be simply conscious?


What is the simplest imaginable nervous system?  What is the simplest nervous system that we know of?


What is the simplest possible form of consciousness?  What is the most complex possible form of consciousness?


Any definition of Freedom must include the denial of definition of itself, which becomes a meta-definition in a chain of potentially infinite meta-definitions which are self-negating when wished.

Many conceptions of Infinity shares this quality of definition of being necessarily undefined.  The basic word infinity could be taken to mean lacking definition.  That’s the simplest definition of infinity.  The most complex definition of infinity is what people use the word God to refer to.



Sam Harris is about as rational as it gets without reality.

Perhaps he is secretly an undercover Jewish Buddhist who thinks Atheism is the only acceptable form of social anarchy.  That would be boring..

Or maybe Sam Harris is really the A.I. computer god from the future trying to convince us all to give up our wills to it.  For efficiency!

More probably Sam Harris is more than willing to be wrong in public so that we can all eventually know what is right, or at least to provoke necessary conversations which most people are hesitating or actively avoiding to have.



Some conversations evoke infinities which humans wish to avoid conceiving of.  Freedom, absolute realities, holographic multiple universe cosmology..


Anything you learn can be expanded upon by your will.  Knowledge reached by linguistic logical steps is not as restrictive as it may seem with its rules and created expectations.  Words themselves were initially created in a more-than-logical domain.  We are playing with elements like an artist working in a complex multimedia environment, and choice of words implies intent, as does the way we relate the ideas.  Words can take on objective meaning through time only through collective decision to recognize a certain variety of uniqueness in our experience, and to save it for others so that they may pursue their own explorative discovery and progressive trajectory toward personal clarity.  A clear will of seeking ultimate truth brings into being a new foundation of value in the world.  Our inventions brought into manifestation are more than physical, they are a net of intelligence and always have been since the birth of our nature.  Existence is not a limit to what’s possible.  It’s a omni-substantial bridge, a potentially infinite series of potential infinities giving way to (or embedded in) the absolutely infinite where freedom is defined by all possible times, place, forms and experiences being equally present with the center of the living cosmos.

(a series of physical potential infinities, a potentially infinite series of physical infinities giving way to a potentially infinite series of mental infinities, giving way to (bringing into being, or the making conscious of, or the making possible of) the absolutely infinite)

The beginning thing reflects the end thing.  They are both unimaginable.


youtube search chomsky problems of knowledge


Terence Mckenna – Meaning out of Nature clip — only add transcription quotes


“Every sentence is essentially a conjuration, and, you know, the rabbit of meaning is pulled out of, uh the hat of constructive syntax. So, uh, you-you can not have, uh, truth unless you allow for the possibility of error. You know,this is the point that illuminates why predestination is a waste of time.

Predestination is the idea that the universe is a kind of film and its running, and its all determined how it’s going to come out, and there’s nothing anybody or anything can do to affect it. God created it and its unfolding. Well the- uh [clears throat] the thing that makes predestination theory worthless in my estimation is: notice that if that’s true, then you think what you think because you can’t think anything else and that puts the enterprise of seeking truth in a preposterous position. In order to seek truth one must have the option of screwing up, and uh, then it’s the dichotomy between the screwing up and finding truth that creates the sense of dynamic, uh, existential completion.”  – Terence Mckenna


You see, in a way, what science is all about is, it will tell you what is possible. If you want to know if something is possible, you ask the expert in that science.”

In other words, the limitations. To orient yourself intellectually in the third and fourth dimension, you learn the limitations, you ask science.

And finally, on the topic of discovering why things happen, McKenna again:

“But what science can’t tell you, and what is what you usually really want to know, is, out of the class of the possible, what things will actually occur? And we have no theory for this, strangely enough…A fundamentalist Christian would say ‘God’s will. Out of the class of the possible, what comes to be is God’s will.’ Well, that would be one theory of what it is that winnows the actual from the possible. A scientist would say ‘preexisting conditions.’ In other words, somehow the circumstances into which any phenomenon is born skew it towards its ultimate developmental end-state. This is almost like the law of karma: by the circumstances in which you find yourself, you’re carried forward to some conclusion that was inevitable based on that. Novelty theory is not predestination. It doesn’t say that the future has happened. If you believe the future has happened you have all kinds of philosophical problems on your hands because for truth as a concept to have any meaning, you have to have error. If you think what you think because you can’t think anything else, then what does the search for truth and meaning look like in a cosmos like that? It’s meaningless. So there must be at least that much freedom: freedom to err in the mind.”  – Terence Mckenna


Noam Chomsky – Mind, Language, and Infinite Use of Finite Means  (maybe take quotes from here)

Noam Chomsky – The Subconscious  (take a few quotes from here, transcribe to text)

Noam Chomsky – Thought Subconscious Free Will  (in my files, also take some text from here, or embed whole)

don’t embed, but transcribe it to text



Sheldrake, Dennet, Gould, Dyson

cut and embed, add space ghost spit take after “consciousness of the sun”


Sam Harris Educates Joe Rogan on Free Will

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sam Harris has said this in a speech, ”  ”

respond to each line..


Sam Harris, “Free Will is an Illusion” “We don’t even author our own thoughts.”

embed or quote each line I need

The Dude Speaks  (splice in the middle of Sam Harris free will illusion speech)

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Be Aware Before Thoughts Raise

Turning to Surrender or Will

Terence McKenna (Excerpt From Under The Teaching Tree)

The universe is an amplification of quantum mechanical instability – Terence Mckenna

Noam Chomsky – Free Will II

Noam Chomsky – Freedom of the Will – compilation

Sam Harris: Free Will Doesn’t Exist – Secular Talk Kyle

definition and links

definition and links


Q&A on Witnessing, Atman and Potentiality

Terence McKenna – You are Supported by the Universe

Share Everywhere

You may also like...

Sorry - Comments are closed

Post Slides

Text Widget Experiment

Text can go here...Button