Metaphysic Storm

Mind over Madness

The difference between mere animals and the enlightened beings, such as the Elephants, Dolphins, and Monkey-Man, is the level of consciousness that is required to be self aware. There are physical requirements such as an extremely complex brain and some software/experience events that are required for the brain. If we were inhuman and took a human child and raised it a white room in isolation and feed it like a gerbil, that being would have less self awareness than an elephant in a zoo with mirrors and a social environment. The human child’s brain certainly has the potential but inherited structure is not the only ingredient, which is a logical reason to steer clear of the non-thinking processes of religion, and other nothinking addictions. Clearly being one of the flock forces self awareness into the state of flock awareness.

The second level of enlightenment is empathy and is unique to mankind on earth. This high level of consciousness requires the skill of being able to use ones imagination to create more than one person in ones mind. This is the what many people confuse with the soul or the belief that the mind exists outside the brain. The materialistic view fosters strict dry phenomenalism which is a view to which some or all mental states are mere side-effects or by-products of physical states of the world. This belief of the mind/brain does not take into consideration the fact that the events within the brain are events in the world. Even though they were not caused by external influences they are a cause in themselves. A single person is physically unable to have a debate and increase knowledge without an other individual to debate with, however with mans powerful imagination most of us have experienced the conversations we have with ourselves. This dualism is essential for having an internal logical base of morality, trouble shooting ones self and using free will to create our personality. It is commonly mislabeled as source energy, god mind and universal consciousness. As a human sits still and rides the storm of ones mind, in essence dances with itself, one can increase ones knowledge without any other source than oneself. The key to doing such a thing is being able to have such a developed empathic ability that one can be doubly empathic. This metaphysical concept sparks many into believing in the Holy Spirit for to have a constructive conversation with oneself one must be able to imagine oneself in the mind of a non existent supernatural entity and then place an empathy in it back to the source, which is of course is the individual. The strict materialist will claim there is nothing significant with the process of self debate, that it is simply a timed loop of thoughts in our frontal lobe. I agree that there is nothing supernatural about it but it does seem to be a “Divine” end to the evolution of consciousness. The wheel is finally ground smooth with nothing more than the fact that successful things succeed, driving it. Thank you Mr. Darwin.

The final state of Enlightenment is when the Empathic enlightenment merges with linguistics, mathematical and scientific methods. There exists no one man that is capable of knowing everything there is to know in the world, there’s just too much information to absorbe in our brief existence. Not to mention the fact that you can never truly know what it is like being someone else. But with people dedicated to preserving history and rational knowledge, as a collective we are able to specialize and collaborate in such a way that we can understand the mechanics of the universe. An analogy would be that the internet, libraries and our educational systems create a metaphoric mind of the planet. From this, Humanistic morals come floating to the top of religious madness. The Earth is not 10 thousand years old, the Sun does not orbit the Earth and there are no virgins waiting for you in heaven. Zero bless…

The proof

I don’t know how many times you’ll hear an atheist say this but I need you to “be a witness”. Free will will set you free. To first realize the revelation that free will can provide, one must understand what free will is. It is not the freedom to do what ever one wants. No matter how hard one tries one will not be able to stop time or brake the laws of gravity. One’s free will resides in the electrified dance of the frontal lobe of ones brain. Typically the lower brain regulates breathing but ones free will can override that and one can force a new rhythm to ones breath, however one is not free to stop breathing, one would die. Therefore free will exists within certain boundaries of possibilities. At any moment one can decide to move ones hand. This act of moving ones hand by the voluntary will of the mind, changes massive amounts of molecules in the local environment but also shifts the gravitational field across the entire universe, even if it is an infitesimally small amount, the change does take place and effects everything and the possibilities therein. The definition of God is the Supernaturalbeing that is everywhere and knows everything. The fact that one is able to make decisions that God is unsure of, equates to the fact that God does not know everything. God is impossible.

The claim that God gave us free will does not resolve this massive inconsistency with his definition.

Kill the ManBot

Free will is a brain tease no doubt about it. It’s one of those things that most everyone admits to having yet is a most difficult thing to explain. The few die-hard materialists that believe that we are deterministic beings think so because of a hardwired program in our minds called instinct. There are varying levels of free will. A chip Monk has much less of it than us and a flat worm has almost zero. We are surrounded by herds of people that willingly maintain a loss of a large portion of their free will by being TV addicted, god fearing zombies, even though they might not have had much choice in becoming a zombie due to Gods team of brainwasher’s.

Free will however is not when a person simply randomly goes against their instinct. Analogously speaking our computer and its firmware is programmed to do four things, control organ processes, make protein, put genetic material into the next generation and be nice. One does not have the free will to violate the first two firmware programs or else the man-bot would die. The third firmware program is easily violated and that is a choice. Being nice is quickly violated when the individual is threatened and is unable to devote time to the frontal lobe for peaceful ways out. It’s easy to go through life with ones dick in one hand and a gun in the other, the easy choice is not always the best choice. What’s my point? A robot would be unable to change it’s programming. I’ve even tried to imagine a robot that was programmed with the main goal of changing it’s goals. I’m sure you can see that would be fatal to the robot.

Emotions are more than a release of peptides in the brain. Joy by XTC is not the true joy found by the mind dancing with itself. Joy found by taking a tab is much different than the joy of a friends company. Art always pops in my head when I think of free will, I wonder if I have a choice about the popping or if art is actually the core of true free will. If an artist has a pallet with red, blue and green and dabs the brush in the blue that action is not completely random nor is it in any way deterministic due to external circumstances. Perhaps you’re thinking that the current state of the mind dictated the hand to go for blue and in a sense you’re right. It’s not truly deterministic though because the choices we made in our minds set the stage for the current state of the mind which is a deterministic program, a sequence of physical activities [squeeze hand, lift arm, push into glob, etc..].

After the painting is finished the painting is ether good or bad to the artist and is ether good or bad to an appreciator. Both can differ and both are correct, this is where the highest level of free will is found, taste. The beautiful thing about free will is that it is the sophisticated software we write and load in our hardware that rides on top of the firmware with the ultimate goal of Human happiness. Happiness is a subjective experience and therefore there are infinite destinations with one true collective goal, Human peace.

Free will again

I am shocked I live in a world were some of the brightest minds are starting to believe that free will is an illusion. In my previous post about free will, I mentioned that there are indeed different levels of free will within different species and even further within a single species. Opinion is the highest level of free will second only to art.

Mr. Adams likes to view the mind as a toaster. “A toaster in a different environment will make toast differently.” It is a fact that if you were to be placed in the middle of the plains with a lion at your back your free will would almost be reduced to zero as instincts take control of mental processes. If you just won a million dollars while you were sitting on the beach drinking corona your free will would be opened wide. The problem with the toaster is that although the toaster can make dark and light toast it can not chose to do so.

Here is a Dilbert test of free will: (First the doctor locates the place in the brain where electrical stimulation causes the patient to lose speech. Then the surgeon asks the patient to keep speaking normally despite the electrical stimulation.

If the patient can speak normally despite having the speech center stimulated, then the patient has free will that can overcome the normal chain of cause and effect in the brain. If he can’t speak, then you have proven the brain is nothing but a moist and complicated machine and your life is a pointless series of miseries.)

Individual neurons do not have free will. Free will does not mean that I can chose to fly right now if I want to. The logic that the materialists adhere to is that if one circuit is deterministic then a billion billion circuits are also deterministic. They are saying there is no difference between a light bulb and a Pentium processor. The fact that high voltage power lines and our brains both work in 1s and 0s does not mean that they are identical. There is a synergy that is produced when we put logic, memory, sensation and emotion together and that product is free will. It is the magic that is not supernatural.

Instead of Mr. Adams lobotomy test, I think this is a much better experiment. Twins attached at the heads are presented with the most physically possible similar experiences and circumstances. If we do not have free will and we simply are reacting deterministically to the stimulus of our environment then they should be completely identical in there thoughts and opinions. Identical twins have expressed many bizarre behaviors compared to us “normals” but they are not in any way deterministic. They have individual tastes and goals which is a huge score for the existence of free will.

Free will Mega post

Why did I start thinking about free will? I haven’t been able to get it out of my head all week.We’re all born with inquisitive minds and after these 40 years I haven’t been able to turn it off. Nearly everything I see interests me and the more mysterious it is, the more attracted to it I become. When I started thinking about Zero a year ago, I came to the logical conclusion that God and the supernatural do not exist. Nether were really important in my life so the realization they don’t exist didn’t have much of an effect on me aside from wanting the truth to be spread. Letting something that doesn’t exist decide what ethics are, is a big problem and it effects everyone.

I’ve been reading about free will and was amazed to find quite a few people who don’t believe it exists. It’s easy to see why a logical person would think that it doesn’t, for if you believe in cause and effect, every action you will into existence had some cause to it, be it your DNA or environment. That thought really tears me up inside. The idea of being a puppet to the spirit world is bad but being a toaster in a cold universe is far worse. Then I began imagining the spirit world and it posses the same problem only in the protoplasmic realm. The “spirits” would also be in a “world” of cause and effect which begs the question, there does their free will come from? Excluding the “possibility” of an infinite hierarchy of “spirits” who instill free will into the lower forms until it ends with us. The ultimate source in this non-explanation is God which brings me full circle. So ether I believe I’m a toaster in the cause and effect universe or a toaster held by a spirit that’s toast for the ultimate hungry man.

The thought that free will doesn’t exist has enormous consequences. How could we have a system of justice if every person isn’t the cause of their actions but simply the result of chance or causes that were not of their making? How could any of us take pride in what we do if we simply are a computer program that took data in, churned it in our machine head and spit out a predetermined result? Before I started my “desperation thinking”, I stopped and declared an important Jack Handy affirmation to myself, “Even if it’s true, that free will doesn’t exist, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference in my life. It’s not like I would have had something and then it was taken away.” During my thought exercises I dove into identity which is another big question related to free will. The line, ‘if you want to be,start thinking’, formed in my mind but I realized it was just a different version of Descartes line, “I think therefore I am.”

I still think that free will exists and that the problem is that some people don’t exercise it by using their mind, which is the key element in forming ones own opinions, desires and values. The determinists believe that all choice is an illusion, that just because there are options that a person could have done the options were not choices because the state of the being and it’s surroundings were locked into a rigid form of materialistic cause and effect. The quantum physicists will argue that free will exists because the being is an observer who upon viewing a probability collapses the wave into being. The ball rolls up the hill and has a slight probability of materializing on the other side before the effect of gravity takes hold. I don’t hold to ether view. I am destined to die but the path to my death is not written in some billiard ball rooms chalk board. The earth doesn’t really on us viewing it to collapse into reality for that thinking leads to another infinite regression, who was watching us and what is watching it?

I think the essential elements of free will are products of natural selection and consist of being conscious, having memory, an imagination and using all three in self debate. Comparing our memories with our imagination we can form probability versions of the effects our decisions will have and chose the one that fits to our current values and the values we imagine we will have in the possible future. Since we do live in a world where there is intrinsic randomness we’ll never be able to determine the future with any semblance of determinism. Mostly because we live in a world with 6 billion other free wills floating around. Free will is only meaningful in scenarios where choice exists. Everyone is responsible for decisions even if they were not aware that they had a decisions, because not putting the effort into examining one’s options is a choice not to recognize choice. The responsibility of our actions rests on the fact that we all are born valuing ourselves and peace with the others on the planet.

When we make choices about values that aren’t related to anything but artistic opinion, we release a gate in our mind which influences our subsequent opinions and desires. This is how we build ourselves. That is why I like blue. I may not like blue in the future but that rests souly on the artistic value decisions, I make from now till then. I’m now choosing to stop thinking so much about free will. Well upon a few seconds of reflection I think I might let it slide a few more hours, perhaps a day. I’ve been doing most of this work in my head without observing other people. It will be good to get outdoors and watch other people interact. Perhaps I’ll do a little thinking without words. The world of free will chat is futile because there is no question that options exist, we are all responsible for recognizing them. The apple that’s dropping to the ground has no option.

I am a New Mysterian

From Wikipedia, “-ist is an English suffix denoting a person - it describes that person’s chief duty, or belief.” One of the strongest beliefs I have is that it is illogical to believe in something without being able to disprove that which one believes. However I believe there are two exceptions, the impossibility of Zero and existence of Infinity. Both of these “things” are impossible to disprove because to disprove infinity one would have to be zero and if one were zero one couldn’t do anything. To disprove Zero one would have to be infinite. Troublesome indeed. There however is evidence that both “things” do exist, the observation that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed implies that both concepts are true. These metaphysical concepts have more validity than believing in things that don’t have any relationship to things also know as the supernatural.

I enjoy clicking through the Internets. The internet is where I found out that I was a Humanist. What a noun, atheist n. some one who doesn’t… No wonder I was disappointed when I went out in the world to find my fellow doesn’ters. I found it quite strange to find that I fit into a noun. I was pretty excited when I became an atheist because I was finally part of a group. I found yet another group that I can’t help but be a member of. They are called the New Mysterians. We believe that there are some questions that are beyond the ability of words or numbers to solve. I think there are very few of these questions, the most significant being the existence of free will.

I am not an agnostic free willist. I definitely believe it exists but I don’t think we will ever have more than the subjective authority of oneself to declare it’s existence. I also don’t think this stance is a cop-out to a big problem. I’m sure many people will claim that just because we can’t explain it now does not mean that we won’t be able to in the future. I think there is a very expectable explanation for believing it’s an unsolvable problem. Consciousness is an internal and private experience that can not be directly conveyed to another individual. There is no justification for thinking that you can experience what it is like to be a bat. Imagination can do a damn good job but not never with 100% accuracy. You’ll always be a human trying to think like a bat or a heman trying to think like a woman.

The scientists that think that our knowledge is only limited by the size and complexity of our brains are missing a very important fact. If we force evolution along by growing babies outside the womb so we can have a species of superbrainiacs, they might be able to explain our consciousness but since their consciousness also would have increased, they logically wouldn’t be unable to explain their own. That’s not even mentioning that physicists and cosmologists are not biologists and should be careful how they use the word evolution. Personally I think if we can get through this “monkey with a butcher knife” period of Humanity, we won’t have any pressures placed upon us by our environment. Therefore we would be the end purpose of evolution.

I Can’t Stop Myself. Seriously.

Mr. Adams once again has posted about the infamous toaster heads. Even though I have declared myself a New Mysterian, I still feel out of control wanting to counter any words written against the existence of my “Self”. He linked to a NY Times article which for the most part agreed with the veggie toast creator of Dilbert. Some of the lines that caused a fairly predictable spark in my mind were.”According to deep mathematical principles, they say, even machines can become too complicated to predict their own behavior and would labor under the delusion of free will.”

I find it odd that people that argue against free will are perfectly content thinking that machines will developed consciousness, logically I really shouldn’t. One can not “predict” one’s own behavior without being aware of oneself. Being able or unable to predict ones behavior has nothing to do with choice. I could chose to be unpredictable or predictable if I will to do so, I know because I’ve done it. It has everything to do with being able to imagine ones options and choosing to act on them.. As I sit here behind my LCD virtual portal to the world, I expect a swarm of bug machines to form a face as they plug me into the matrix and declare that “It is done.” Some more NY Times tids.

Seth Lloyd, an expert on quantum computing said, “If by free will we mean the ability to choose, even a simple laptop computer has some kind of free will”

It’s strange to live in a world were really smart people are getting confused about what a choice is. A computer system does not chose anything. It is running exactly what was willed into it, even if what was programmed into it was waiting to find the most efficient time to run it’s one’s and zero’s. I want these slave-will people to give evidence that it doesn’t exist before they claim that it doesn’t. At that point I am determined to put my tail between my legs and unplug my toaster. Antifree willists are not the same as being an antibubblegumologist. There is no bubblegum man standing in front of me telling me he feels and has propose. Why do these people use poor metaphors in describing something that is entirely and intrinsically Human. We just can’t help ourselves, we want to relate everything to something and there simply isn’t anything to relate consciousness to. If only the Elephants could talk!Rocks exist. Rocks have mass. They get warm in the sunshine and cool in the evening mist. So do we. We must be rocks. Show me a robot that gets the desire to make a painting, paint it, decide when it’s done and then tell me what it feels about it and I will start questioning the existence of my free will. Until then, “I say so” and hopefully you do too.

Will it ever end?

Toaster head has directed me to another write up on the tendency that many academics are losing their belief in free will.”When you choose to eat the chocolate cake or the plain one, are you really free to decide?” asks Conway. In other words, could someone who has been tracking all the particle interactions in the universe predict with perfect accuracy the cake you will pick? The answer, it seems, depends on whether quantum mechanics’ inherent uncertainty is the correct description of reality or ‘t Hooft is right in saying that beneath that uncertainty there is a deterministic order.The uncertainty principle not only applies to ultra small scales, it also applies to our size scale. Take radar for instance. A cop shooting a beam of radio waves at you when your driving your SLR has to wait for those beams to hit you and bounce back, at that point he knows where you were. Another shot and he knows where you were for a second time. Using math, the gun compares the distance traveled between those two times and reveals your speed. When your speed is revealed you will be in an other state. No one but the driver or the particle itself “knows” where it is and how fast it’s going. But just because the driver is the only one who knows for sure by, plugging their speedometer into their brain, it doesn’t mean that their on a deterministic auto pilot or that their at the mercy of random XTC blasts in their brain.

“We have to believe in free will to do anything,” says Conway. “I believe I am free to drink this cup of coffee, or throw it across the room. I believe I am free in choosing to have this conversation.”

I think Conway’s line that we have the will to do anything, though I’m sure he didn’t mean literally, is the reason why so many people are starting to think it doesn’t exist. We only have free will when we are in specific situations that present options. The more one chooses to practice recognizing options the more power of will that person will possess. Even if the individual chooses not to act on any of the newly revealed options.

I also think that influence and inspiration confuse the free will topic. It is certainly true that a previous generation of artists can influence and inspire the succeeding, but that doesn’t mean they determine or dictate what they will do. You can trace the first painter all the way back to the caves of France and the first musician to the plains of Africa. Was it just the fact that our brains evolved to a size and complexity that art was inevitable? Maybe so. But nothing dictated when the first Humans looked to the buffalo and chose to spit a sketch or clap ones hands one two, one two and chose to say that it was good.

Choice

The whole concept of belief is a strange idea. Snicker. We group people by the declaration of their beliefs. Jonathan Miller does a wonderful job of explaining how odd belief really is. We don’t have to be actively thinking to hold the belief to be true. We don’t after all suddenly not believe in the existence of music when we’re not listening to it. The religious claim that it is a matter of choice to believe in god and the polite philosopher claims that it is a matter of opinion. I’m beginning to think that both views are incorrect. The more I dive into what I have ignored for so long, religion, history and current events, the more difficult I find even the possibility of believing in god as an agent. Philosophy and being in the moment, led me to become a strong atheist and naturalist but religious human behavior led me to become a preacher of ZERO.

The concept of Free Will gets so convoluted in the spiritual and materialist belief systems, that it almost loses all meaning. The religious explain it with the non-answer of “God willed it into being” and the hard edged cause and effect view denies it’s existence because it seems to brake the law. I certainly don’t believe that Free Will brakes the observation of cause and effect but it certainly is the most magical thing humans have observed so far. Inorganic matter and most of the life on earth are slaves to the clockwork of the universe. When our consciousness is limited to the sphere of our internal net of pathways, fired neurons and neuro-chemicals and we dance in the self debate of memories, assumptions, sensation and opinions we produce something that is not observed anywhere in the universe. The active mind is more precious than the rarest of the rarest of commodities. It is magic, love, beauty and the brightest of lights.

Free Will turns out not to be as free as people wish it were, for if Free Will were totally free we would be gods not Humans. This realization does not diminish the value of what Free Will we have, for it still remains the most incredible thing known to date. The belief that belief is a choice or an opinion is a misconception. Opinion is opinion. Choice is choice and that’s the domain of free will. The confusion arises from the bizarre assumption that reality is a matter of choice. This is even surfacing in the field of physics, where Nobel prize seeking people are willingly creating situations where the most deadly thing known to man, the black hole, may come into existence. I have no choice but to worry about the possibility of virtual particles not existing. If they were real partials I would have confidence they would evaporate such a dark end to my home. I have no choice. Why don’t I have a choice? Because I only believe in things that have evidence supporting the belief. If we observed free quarks, I would believe that the atom and the photon are not the fundamental elements in the universe. If we found free quarks would we not want to smash them also?

I believe I exist. It’s not a choice or an opinion. People that are unable to differentiate between choice and opinion are the most dangerous agents on the planet. The Spiritualists believe that real evidence is not essential for belief or that it is acceptable to attribute arbitrary agents as the cause to effects that lye outside there ability to except events without meaning instilled by an agent. Some quantum physicists believe they are responsible for reality by observing evidence or more radically by thinking it into existence. Obviously our senses are fallible but we have reached a point in history that we have created objective devices that register stimuli. The giger counter ether clicks or does not. To think that there needs to be a person to hear the click for the click to be is simply Human arrogance. The scientist who endlessly seeks to make their own evidence or the spiritualist who needs no evidence are signs of sickness. Condemn me to hell for not even being able to chose to believe in God or claim I’m ignorant because I don’t think there are answers found in cutting infinity into pieces. I at least know that I am, and am happy not to have a choice about it.

Mr. Adams embraces slave will

I am smarter than Einstein because my brain has electricity running through it, as opposed to Einstein’s brain which has dehydrated to the size of a gold ball with very little potential energy relative to mine. Mr. Adams cuts his argument with the regular filler a person who has no point uses, stating that someone who was intelligent has the same opinion. Logically he reminds us that “Einstein wasn’t right all the time”, which I certainly agree with, but then follows that obvious statement with, “Right and wrong isn’t the point today.” He certainly thinks he’s right about the non existence of free will and is happily wetting his pants waiting for his readers to present their arguments.

Mr. Adams was reading an article which stated, “A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills.” and presents the his “facts” stating, “Why do I continue to blog on this same worn-out topic of free will? The real answer is that I have no choice.” I find it hard to believe that the choice to write, again, about free will and post it to the internet happened in the chemical/electrical instant he push the enter button on typepad. To think that his toaster generated the complex sentences, reviewed, edited and then finally with his free will approved of, begs the imagination.

I’m wetting my pants because I know that Scott doesn’t even know what it is he claims doesn’t exist. Whereas being a naturalist, it’s easy enough to deny the existence of god, because it’s definition is quite obvious, free-will is a more complex compound word. Einstein most likely was against the idea of free will because he was assimilating with American consumer culture and associated the word free with, from nothing. This (insert product) is free! 0 money required! That doesn’t mean that the product came from the spirit world, it means that the product is liberated from the oppression of money. Sunlight isn’t even free, it’s oppressed by time. Free will is the liberation from the inability to think and make decisions. Most lower animals have a minute level of free will but they are mainly subjected to slave will, also known as blind instinct.

Language is the key element in the total liberation of the will. Without language (verbal/body/art,) we are unable to debate with ourselves or each other, which equates to the emotions and instinct controlling all decision processes. Probably the person with the most free will of our time was free to think he didn’t have it. Use it or loss, no understanding of what it is necessary.

Einstein said, “Schopenhauer’s saying, ‘A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills,’ has been a real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life’s hardships, my own and others’, and an unfailing wellspring of tolerance.” I wonder why Einstein wasn’t tolerant of the Nazi’s? Just like the Theists claiming God gave us the choice to reject faith in his existence, humans do have the choice to give up their free-will. This is the word of You man.

Superfree Will does not exist.

Why am I wearing out the topic of free will? Because I want to. Schopenhauer said, “A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills” Apparently Einstein, Adams and Schopenhauer, who all embrace/embraced the line, at least believe/believed in the will. That is, the mind can conceive of future actions or schemes. They think the mind is just incapable of conjuring what it wants those future actions or schemes to be. Even having a separate will inducing mind would propose a problem for free will because where would the freeness come from in the directors mind? We can go all the way back to the concept of god and still are confronted with a solution that insults the intellect: God gets his will from Zero! This zero thing really is a powerful noeverthing.

I haven’t read any of Schopenhauer’s philosophy but I took a quick glimpse at his Wikipage and saw that he was inspired by Buddhism. I’m not shocked that anyone who presents the pessimist premise that, we are robots, had an attraction to Buddhism. It wasn’t his fault because he must not have had a choice. As far as I’m concerned the Buddhists and the suicidal demonstrate that Homo Sapiens have the highest level of free will, because we have the capacity to freely remove the desire of the self, something no other animal that has a self can do. No other animal will eat their kind grinds and be idiotic enough to claim that it’s suffering.

I believe we can will what we will, but that we can not will, what we will, what we will. Why? Well, it’s wearily simple. The power evolved along with our gigantic and complexly structured brains. It is the capacity of reflective second person intentionality. First person intentionality is the, I think or I will, an action or a thought into the universe. Second person intentionality is the, I think they think. We use second person intentionality all the time when we interpret body language or read between the lines of a persons words. Third, forth, Nth, person intentionality is used pretty much exclusively for conscious lying. Do you know that I think, that you think, that I thought, that you thought, I had the code?

The interesting evidence of willing the will is that we can practice second person intentionality on ourselves. Why do I want/think this? That question, the internal self critical skeptic, is what free will is. The ability to get “out of our head” and analyze ourselves. It’s as if our brain splits in two and indeed it is big enough to do so quite successfully. This ability, that every person acquires around the age of 3, is why everyone is responsible for their actions. Some of us loss control of our will and start willing the will of our will. If this happens, I assume the proper terminology is Schizophrenia. Those are the people that if they commit a crime, belong in an institution, not a prison.

Slave-will is letting an outside agent take control of ones internal second person intentionality. Tell me what to think Mrs. Party, Rev. Minister, Mr. M, for I don’t want to do my thinking for myself. Slave Will is Blind Faith. Faith that isn’t blind isn’t faith, will that isn’t free isn’t will.