CommanderSouth

Really nothing. Just my idea of what is below the surface would change and ironically, I can’t see under it anyway, so why does it matter? I have to internalize that question, which is what I’m working on. The more I think about it the more, I think that there are things we don’t understand, and in that space is almost certainly where the answer to how our free will, so, works. Even still, something that came up in Enders game (xenocide) that I had to go back and listen to again is the discussion about free Will. Ender and Miro we’re having a discussion about free Will, and Ender brought up the point that he felt that everything at its basic level was intelligent matter doing what intelligent matter wants, and he says that he felt like we were made of the same stuff. He positive that we have always existed, and we have always done what we want, I like that too the views that some in the church have on intelligences to me that makes all the sense in the world, and it aligns very well with Abraham three. And it does give me some solace, some hope that those who deny free will or simply wrong. And they could be, and I hope they are. One thing I have come to learn is that there must be opposition in all things, and that statement about everything being one wasn’t just mumbo-jumbo if there was no differentiation between things, nothing could exist. Everything exist because it’s not the same thing , and there is a powerful truth, and that’s what I’m beginning to try to grab hold of and pull myself up from there.

FWIW, the last sentence may be true, and may be meant with total love, but my initial response to "You don't understand agency" was a knee to the groin. Just remember, sometimes some context can help with words (I say this with understanding, not with malice.) In any event, you are correct. The whole problem I am having is NOT understanding agency Which is causing me great pain right now. That said, I am arguing from the point that, being in flight requires submission to laws. Another way to say where I am coming from is to say, God has basically said, I will always be in flight. Through having said that, he has limited his choices in a sense. He now HAS to be in flight or he is a liar. Knowing he cannot be in flight AND a liar, it follows he will always be in flight. And if that comes from a mastery of will to the point that he can make such a pronouncement, then that's fine. I'm just arguing that statement is now limiting his options. It's very much like the understanding that agency isn't "free", we can choose actions, but not consequences. Which we would need to understand also applies to God. Maybe that is exaltation, being able to say, with intent, and certainty, I will never do wrong. And having the ability to hold your desire to that infinitely. Then, and only then, could you be called God, in the position sense.

You just have to assume now that the want never changes.

Because I am thinking of "Being God" as the flight in your example. The entity Elohim, is currently in flight. We call his state of flight as him "being God". Thus for him to be God, he must remain in flight, which means he has to obey those laws that keep him aloft. You could say he wants to, but since we know he will always be God, we also know that will CANNOT change. Which APPEARS to rob his agency. Though if you treat it as he WILL NOT change, the issue is a non issue. He's doing it becaue he wants to. If that makes sense.

To run that idea of completeness a bit further. Perhaps the pain is the process of not "being true" perhaps the "not true" in us is what causes pain. You often see peace for people in the most dire situations as they accept their situation. Maybe being one with your existence is the peace. I don't know, perhaps I'm carrying it too far, but something in there feels true. It seems to resolve the dilemma of Godhood. God WILL do the things God does, but on it's face that robs God of agency, but we believe he DOES have agency. And perhaps that's exaltation, enlightenment, nirvana, whatever you call it. Submitting your will to truth, to "God". And then, when we are fully submitted, our being becomes one with "God" and like 2 hydrogens and one oxygen becoming water, the man, the wife, and the Lord, all become the new "God" particle. And since we now no longer do the thing an oxygen does, and we do the things water does, we are at peace. Maybe all we are is oxygen preparing and striving to become water. To be joined in a way we can't yet understand fully. I want to say, comparing God's free will to ours is helpful because God is technically deterministic, but we would believe he has free will. Interesting. Perhaps correct, but perhaps not. But interesting.

Another musing (spaghetti at the wall) I have not came to terms with free will yet, but a thought is percolating in my mind. Similar to how I've thought before, becoming like God is becoming the I AM, it means becoming all powerful, all knowing. It comes by aligning oursleves to "truth" to what "is". So does it hurt to kick against the pricks? It does, because the pricks are what is true. Fighting truth is pointless. So we need to continue to align our will to his, this life is to work on bringing our alignment to his. It would follow that "the amt of knowledge we gain in this life benefits the next" makes sense to mean the degree to which we are "becoming true". So maybe we WON'T have free will in the end. We'll just do what God's DO. But if we do it because we chose it, then it doesn't matter, we are doing it. So Wilcox's lesson is still powerful. Whether we practice for A) or practice for B), we still practice. Perhaps that is the fundamental misunderstanding, that just because something looks or behaves deterministically doesn't mean it isn't free. So might it be with all matter. Perhaps that is Godhood. Perhaps doing the things God does BECAUSE WE WANT it, is the key. We aren't like the lower intelligences, they do because they are commanded, we will do because we desire. And God can help us change that desire. He can help us become "complete" and all pain comes from NOT yet being complete. Knowing spirit is matter and a fullness of joy is body AND spirit united makes the difference. Like a new atom, perhaps the FULLNESS, COMPLETENESS of joy comes in changing the atom that our intelligence IS.

This is a lot like thinking a table is solid your whole life until you realize that there are gaps in the atoms, and that if you were small enough, you could pass through. Maybe the moral is, don't look too closely. Or better yet, at a tiny level you don't have free will (AKA CAN PASS THROUGH) but at a regular level, you do (AKA CAN NOT PASS THROUGH).

I beginning to realize that everyone operates from assumptions. Even if you go down to bedrock, you have an assumption, 2 in fact. 1) You exist 2) Something external to you exists independently of you. (Because I found there are people who don't believe this, but I feel those turn into causal nightmares, so I'm leaving it alone. Mostly because assumption 1 opens the door wide enough to make assumption 2 follow logically) (IMPLIED) 3) We can know things about 1 and 2 And you move up from there. Implicitly in 2 (and to a degree 3) is where all measurement lives. But that's where I'm realizing, everything we do is driven by the assumption we exist. And if we do (which it sure seems like), then something IS, or IS NOT (Opposition in all things, lest all things be one). Since we also assume 3, it would follow that there will be evidence of X, and X exists. But the evidence doesn't CAUSE X, it's indicative that X exists. Which introduces the possibility or misinterpretation of X evidence. Since this is possible, Free Will deniers can be wrong (not of malintent, but of misunderstanding). Ergo, evaluation of evidence is needed. (Which I could argue permits a choice, and solves the whole argument anyway, but I'll resist.) But the important thing is, we all assume things, we have to, and if those assumptions are wrong, they lead to a wrong conclusion. (See King Follet, if we go wrong for the start, it's hard to get back). It makes me wonder, if existence itself REQUIRES choice. Which, I'm fine with

That’s true. I forgot that. He even mentions it in the talk.

It's VERY interesting, I was just watching a video by German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder who I earlier saw post a video saying how free will doesn't exist, and how if you don't believe that you're just rejecting science, and so on (I felt it was very arrogant, but I digress, also futile, because if it doesn't, I couldn't believe anyway). I was watching a follow up video where she was elaborating and said that there was a proven mathematical theory/formula/whatever that said for humans to have free will... particles would have to have free will. I stopped the video there, and wanted to tell her, "Have I got a church for you!" Does any of that mean anything? Of course not, but I would be lying if I rejected the idea thar right now, everything I'm finding, even in this darkness, heck, even the darkness ITSELF, is pointing back to the restored Gospel. By saying there is no such thing as immaterial matter, Joseph hit a home run he didn't even know he was swinging at. By saying that everything is made of intelligence, he put forth a worldview that is very MUCH for OUR day. It almost makes Skousen irrefutable with his "intelligence" idea of the atonement (if we assume the mathematical theorem of necessary particle intelligence is true). It makes Card's understanding of a sort of graded "aiua" (From Speaker for the Dead) a perfect explanation of EVERYTHING, they have will, but they follow deterministic patterns, but have freer wills the higher up you go.

It’s funny because the whole thing is similar to trying to figure out if you are in the matrix. You can’t while being plugged in, and if you are, you have to be plugged in. It almost feels like a semantic with no practical purpose. Though the implications are very important.

I guess the trick is to just have you help me believe in Free Will (I jest)

Having worked in QA that is a representation of life I should have made sooner. Testing is just for working out what bugs need to be addressed. You know going in that you’ll have some. I have to say that is a profound comparison. And a much more reasonable understanding of pre existence, this life, and eternity. It paints the entire thing differently. The more I think the more I realize, answering this question is one that you have to do if you want to believe in God. In the sense that if you are ever actually concerned. If this is all there is then this is all there is. We are just lumps of firing neurons. If there is more, then there is more. To believe you have choice at all, to believe you exist, you have to believe that something beyond material exists. We can HAVE agency, and agency demands there be something more to have it in the first place. We have to be more than our bodies alone. And that puts you smack in the middle of embodied spirits and intelligences. Interesting how all roads lead to the Gospel it seems.

Life is almost like Pascal's wager in that sense. Act like you DO have free will, in case you did. Because if you don't, it doesn't matter any way. And this is a choice with only 2 options, so, unlike Pascal's wager, it's a valid line of reason. You don't have free will, nothing matters. You do, you should do something with it. There is no third option.

Well, I think Card annunciated my feelings about Intelligences, Creation, and Embodiment better than anyone. I am also chewing on the thought that, I truly "want" free will, I "want" to exist. If I have the illusion of free will, isn't that actually better that physically having it? Because, while I can be worried about the illusion, I don't know if it's possible (nor do I wish to try) to break it. So if I have free will from some endowment, I have it. If I don't but think I do, I still "effectively" have it, and am deluded in such a way that I can't lose it. It's like internal vs external motivation. Better to be internally motivated, so why not better to be internally "free willed". It would be like desiring to be cold. If I was physically in the cold, I'm cold. If my mind sends the sensations to receptors without the stimuli, I'm still cold, so I'm still happy! (Barring other things like being somewhere dangerous and normal stimuli being blocked, but that isn't important)

Very similar to when I read Blade Runner and briefly pondered if I could know I were an Android. That's the trick, the question of "are you SURE" followed by, "well how can you KNOW". I know I do that myself all the time on lots of things.

Interestingly in my digging I've found "debunking" of Libet's experiment, (here and here). One questions the interpretation, and the other the experiment itself. It's so odd. I understand that all this equates to a very convincing wink, nod and, "are you SURE?" and it's enough to throw me into a tizzy. Which of course makes me think about Adam and Eve. "You shall surely NOT die." or in this case "You surely DON'T have free will." And that's enough to cause trouble.

I had been discussing this with a family member and had the same conclusion. That our body is hardware and our spirit or will is software. Sure the stats of the hardware directly impacts our “fps” or performance in general. That bring the case doesn’t mean the pc is running itself.

And what's funny to me, I have 0 qualms leaving 95% + of things to determinism. I know I'll eat salad if that's what's in the fridge. I know I'll walk without thinking about it. I understand that habit and homeostasis in my body drive most of my decisions. The place where I find the issue is killing me is the idea that the last 5% is also out of my control. The idea that I have no choice. That even when I try to put those odds in my favor by only stocking salad in the fridge, that, well, I never could have done anything different.

And if I don't have free will, I can't do anything about it

This of course is the delicious irony. I understand what you are saying, but in no way feel it. I'm probably going to take refuge in the fact that I can believe something without knowing it, and believing it is enough to drive my actions. I'm going to have to believe I have free will, even if I don't, else I'm just going to atrophy. And my hope is that in doing so will find my way out of this pit of despair (to borrow something from a movie). I didn't worry about what atheists believed yesterday, why should I today. (And yes, I know this is an unfair generalization, but it suits this).

So, I like tech news, among my sites is ArsTechnica. Yesterday I stumbled on to this gem (link Determinism Vs Free Will) Got to reading it, but now my anxiety is ramping up. Which is bad because I have GAD and Depression. I'm on meds, but I don't like how I'm feeling. I now can't shake the feeling of the determinist view being right. But if that were true (which I am mentally resisting), there is no ME to begin with. I'm just the flame alight from the candle of my body. Thankfully in one breath, I understand that I am a spirit in a body. Eventually they'll be united perfectly, and fill the measure of their calling, or however the saying goes. While I GET that, I don't feel it. I got into reading the Libet experiments which basically say about 500 milliseconds before a person was making a choice to move their hand, their brain was already ramping up for it (readiness potential). Though on the other hand I also read that if you read that data through a different filter, you get it lining up with when participants were saying they were making the decision. All of this is to say, I really just want to talk about ways we are meant to act, and not be acted upon. Because it's interesting to me, after having some good breakthroughs in the last month with my testimony, I feel like I'm being hit in the innermost part of my being, that is to say, MY BEING ITSELF. I wonder if this is the misery that Satan wants for us, he is disembodied, perhaps his anguish is not having a full sense of self. And being denied this, wants to take it from us, if he can. In any event, I have been thinking about the verse about being able to act, and not be acted upon. I've been thinking about the whole crux of the plan being the ability to chose. And that is where my fear is, that I have no ability to choose. That I AM just reacting to stimuli, even if it is a trillion small ones. And in that way, I am not. So I don't expect therapy (though I hope this process is therapeutic). But what are some thought processes you guys have when dealing with this? If I ponder it more, I do realize we are uniquely equipped to deal with this problem. Our self, the intelligence that is "us" is co eternal with God, which makes sense. It is also co eternal with truth, whatever it is. These things being the case, our spirit has agency, it is the most fundamental gift we have, and what Satan wanted to take. It is also in a sense, the only thing we can give God that he doesn't have. We can hand over US to him. This makes sense, but I'm having a hard time "feeling so now" it's like the flavor of the jalapeño of secularism is drowning the perfect mildness of the gospel. Ironic I can fire off all these nice gospel phrases and talk references :D.

Ironically the wedding ring I wear is a Deseret book version of the JS ring. I lost my then current ring in the snow. We went to DB and I found that one and liked it because I knew what it was, but mostly no one else would

Sorry for so many posts so quickly, but I would like to quip. I understand Brother Joseph a bit better now. As when Sidney Rigdon finished the vision dripping in sweat, the Prophet said, "You'll have to forgive Brother Rigdon, he isn't as used to this as I am". I can say, I'm not as used to this as Brother Joseph either. I feel like this topic, even though it was a lot of me talking to Zil2, (ty for the help) and myself, I feel exhausted chewing through this. I really feel like I'm in a better place mentally about this topic now, and also spiritually, as I did feel guided in this possibility. Both of which are something I need in my life right now, and I am grateful to the Lord for. If anyone has any other viewpoints, please share, it's been so helpful!

I think I/anyone who goes down this path, should also be careful, because Bruce R McConkie's words come to mind too. In the Seven Deadly Heresies, he speaks against the idea that (and I paraphrase) "that eternal progression means God is ever learning new truths. This could mean that he will one day find a "better" plan of salvation" I don't want to put forth this idea to think the plan is so malleable that there is a "better" way. I think I'm saying more that one group might respond to THIS parable and another to THAT parable, while neither is better. I think if you take the parallel too far you introduce that. But I think you stay safest if you compare it to a temple ordinance. It's something that can change in administration, but not in the truths and principles involved. Like when Joseph asked Brigham to streamline the endowment. We know there are parts that can change, but the essence cannot. There are eternal parts, and administrative parts. And perhaps THAT is the best way to understand the "plan" as being "God's". While I'm not married to it (though as of now, I feel it's very plausible), it's satisfying enough to put me at ease, and know that there ARE plausible understandings. I want to say I can condense this into the following: We don't believe in "ex nihilo" creation. God didn't create the Earth from nothing, but it is still his creation. We know that certain things, such as intelligence and light/truth ("glory") exist co-eternally with God. We also know that God "has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself". It is therefore plausible, that the plan of salvation is the outcome of "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory" used said "power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself" in creating a plan, similar to how church leadership has "created" temple ordinances. The difference between these being that God has done this with a perfect knowledge. He has done this with an exalted perspective. As the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't say that "Elohim" did this, he didn't attempt to separate the father from his exalted state. So his plan would be different from the "man made" temple ordinances as much as our bodies are different from his, they have a similar form, but his is perfect. I won't carry the analog further, though perhaps one could. I say all of it to say, that there can be multiple ways to share the same truths, and in the same vein, perhaps there are multiple ways to share the exalting truths, the eternal principles, and God's "plan" is his way of doing that for us, knowing the language we speak, and what will make the most sense for us, because he speaks after "our manner of language" (D&C 1:24, among others). I think I'll go to bed now, and leave all of this to settle.