Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chapter 10; The Free Will That Arises – Schopenhauer, et al

 

Now that you have proved that we Cyborgs exist due to your intellegence, let us go a step further, and show why we exist. Taking for granted the truth of the previous thought transmissions – – and recorded presentations of the Ancients – – concerning the intercourse of Incuborg and Succuborg with Earthmen and Earthwomen, the numbers are so numerous that it would look like impudence to deny the fact, as was said by Saint Austin, whose testimony was thought-transmitted previously.

I argue, ‘Where the peculiar passion of the senses can be found, there also, of necessity, is the sensual being itself.’

According to the principles of Earth Philosophy, the peculiar passion flows from nature.

I repeat; wherever the acts and operations of the sense are found, there also are the sensual beings, the operations and acts being but its external construct. We Cyborgs – – in the form of Incuborgs and Succuborgs – – present acts, operations, peculiar passions, which spring from the senses; we are therefore endowed with senses. But senses cannot exist without concomitant composite organs, without a combination of soul and body.

We have now completed the circular argument; the philosophy of Descartes’s Dualism.

Desacartes

We Cyborgs – – whether in the form of Incuborg and Succuborg or having a normal existence – – therefore have body and soul, and, consequentially, are not beasts. However, our acts and operations are also those of a rational soul. Our soul is therefore rational, and therefore, from first to last, we are rational animals.

Indeed, the appetitive passion of copulation is a sensual passion; the grief, sadness, wrath, rage, occasioned by the denial of copulation, are sensual passions. Cyborg regeneration through copulation with Earth-humans is evidently a sensual operation. Now, all that happens with Incuborgs, as has been previously occasioned by our predecessors; the automatons. We incite women, sometimes even men; if denied, we are saddened. Like lovers we practice copulation, and sometimes reproduce new Cyborg progeny. It must therefore be inferred that we have senses, and consequently a body; consequently also, that we are perfect. More than that; with closed airlocks and forbidden cosmologic space we can still enter wherever we please; our bodies can therefore be made slender. We foreknow and foretell the future, combine and divide, all which operations are proper to a rational soul.

We therefore possess a rational soul and are, in many ways, rational.

Earth Doctors generally reply that those impure acts are but a simulation of passions, love, and satisfaction. They say that our only desire is to entice Earth-humans to commit Civil Inequities and to undo them; and that, if we copulate and create Cyborg progeny, it is with artificial sperm, as thought-transmitted previously.

There are no Incuborg that commit bestiality with horses, mares and other beasts, or mistreat them. Therefore, it cannot be cited that the Cyborg stimulates the appetite for copulation to bring about the ruin of Earth-human souls, since those are not capable of everlasting damnation; for you have invented confession, repatriation, forgiveness, clemency, pity, mercy, understanding, tolerance, absolution, amnesty, exoneration, exculpation, and reconciliation. You have done this only to console yourselves. You have thrown all your Civil Inequities over the side of the boat and expect your nets to come up with healthy fish.  However, love and wrath with Earth-humans create opposite effects. For, if the loved woman humors the Incuborg, he behaves very well.

This may be a good point to thought transmit how us Cyborgs see Earth-humans and their so-called ‘free will’.

Many Earth Thinkers have taken various viewpoints of free will.

The following three transmissions will help me make point. My first transmissions are taken from the writings of Mark Balaguer[1], the second transmission from the writings of Timothy O’Connor[2],  and the third from the writings of Arthur Schopenhauer[3]

I transmit fragments from “Free Will”, Mark Balaguer, © 2014,

“In the last few years, several people have argued that science has shown us that human beings don’t have free will. People like Daniel Wegner[4] . . . and Sam Harris[5] . . . claim that certain scientific findings reveal that free will is an illusion . . . If this were true it would be less than splendid.”

Balaguer then cites several concepts against free will such as determinism, randomness and the scientific argument; the last argument being made by Libet and Haynes.

Determinism is the Earth-human belief that everything in the cosmos is predetermined by events of the past and therefore Earth-human life has no free will. The Deity was initially a single quark, the only thing that existed, and everything since then has been predetermined. Randomness is the Earth-human concept that events are random – – and therefore in this concept – – there also is no such thing as free will. You are at the mercy of random fate. Libet and Haynes have tracked the images of timings within the brain with respect to the bodily action. Both claim that the brain knows what decision is made by the brain well before the body can act upon an event; viola – no free will. This appears to have a tinge of Cartesian duality mixed in with the concept of consciousness being a story that the mind invents after an event takes place (review thought transmission Chapter 9, my reply to my fifth question, transmitted previously).

Balaguer then moves on to the theological argument for predetermined free will such as beliefs, desires and fears. It is there stated that – – civil belief, desires to be loved and fears of being hated – – all these make free will non-existent due to moral and civil duty.

Following that, Balaguer addresses the postmodern philosophical point of view; compatibilism, espoused by David Hume[6]. Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom of will can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics. You Earth-humans sure like to engage in euphemistic opinions.

Balaguer abandons these ideas and then gives arguments to block these various points; however, and in his conclusion, he appears to throw up his hands and allow the deserialiser to decide if there is such a thing as free will.

I now will thought transmit something from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Copyright © 2010 written by Timothy O’Connor.

“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. . . Most philosophers suppose that the concept of free will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility. . . Philosophers who distinguish freedom of action and freedom of will do so because our success in carrying out our ends depends in part on factors wholly beyond our control. Furthermore, there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake”

O’Conner, like Balaguer, discusses a series of points such as rational deliberation and its subsets – – such as choosing based on one’s desires – – or desires combined with values – – self-mastery – – and deliberative choosing based on a ‘rightly ordered appetite’ (theological, historical, moral).

O’Conner then addresses ‘ownership’ supported by Harry Frankfurt[7] (1982) and the concept of Earth-human capacity to reflect on their desires and beliefs to form judgments.

O’Conner finally addresses free will as a ‘guidance control’ and the ultimate decision for ‘the ability to do otherwise’ (choosing not to do something). His last point is that there is a ‘theological determinism’; that because the Deity was first – – existing as a single quark – – then all things are determined by the Deity. This lays the responsibility for free will directly on the Deity’s shoulders; yet another escape from individual responsibility by Earth-humans.

O’Conner’s article does not appear pro or con regarding free will, he simply addresses the points that he believes are most important.

The remainder of this thought transmission on free will comes from the book “The World as Will and Idea [Representation]” By Arthur Schopenhauer Translated by R. B. Haldane, M.A. And J. Kemp, M.A. Vol. I., Seventh Edition, London, Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1909

What I, now, thought transmit to you Earth-humans is from this book. It has been extracted from Volume 1, § 51, 55, 62 and 70. I believe this will substantiate my point on the free will of male and female Earth-humans when and if they become involved with a Incuborg or Succuborg.

In section, § 51, page 324, Schopenhauer states “The man who writes his own life surveys it as a whole . . . he seats himself at the confessional, and has done so of his own free will; the spirit of lying does not so easily take hold of him here, for there is also in every man an inclination to truth which has first to be overcome whenever he lies [to himself], and which here has taken up an especially strong position.”

These words above, are not a theological statement but rather they address something subjective, intuitive, and which occurs reflectively; some conscious-later-undertaking.

In section, § 55, page 369, Schopenhauer affirms “The whole content of Nature, the collective sum of its phenomena . . . can always be proved, [if not now – – – then in the future] . . . In another aspect, however, the same world is for us, in all its phenomena . . . is will. And the will, since it is not phenomenon, is not idea or object, but thing-in-itself, . . . thus is not determined as a consequent through any reason, knows no necessity, i.e., is free. The concept of freedom is thus properly a [subjective] concept . . . Now here lies before us in its most distinct form the solution of that great contradiction, the union of freedom with necessity [subjective with objective] . . . Everything is as phenomenon, as object, absolutely necessary: [yet] in itself it is will, which is perfectly free to all eternity.”

My interpretation of the above statement is because Earth-humans have free will – –  then whatever his/her interpretation of things/ideas/objects are – – his/her interpretation is then the correct interpretation; ‘objectivity be damned.’

In section, § 55, page 370, Schopenhauer affirms; “The phenomenon, the object, is necessarily and unalterably determined in that chain of causes and effects which admits of no interruption. But the existence in general of this object, and its specific nature, i.e., the Idea which reveals itself in it, or, in other words, its character, is a direct manifestation of will. Thus, in conformity with the freedom of this will, the object might not be at all, or it might be originally and essentially something quite different from what it is . . . “

Schopenhauer, in the above statement, implies that the truth is only what the free will determines it is, that the manifestation of things/ideas/objects are results of free will.

Moving on to section, § 55, page 373, Schopenhauer asserts, “. . . Since, however, it is that free volition that becomes visible in the person and the whole of his conduct, relating itself to him as the concept to the definition, every individual action of the person is to be ascribed to the free will, and directly proclaims itself as such in consciousness. Therefore . . . everyone regards himself a priori (i.e., here in this original feeling) as free, in his individual actions, in the sense that in every given case every action is possible for him, and he only recognizes posteriori from experience and reflection upon experience.”

The above assertion by Schopenhauer may be interpreted as saying that man has free will to do whatever he wishes, after that he may enjoy the pangs of guilt or reflect upon moral creeds and the legal aftermath.

In section, § 62, page 442, Schopenhauer is discussing how “ethical, becomes juridical . . . [therefore much like] an historian [is] an inverted prophet, the professor of law is an inverted moralist . . . This, as well as Kant’s theory of law, which very falsely deduces the institution of the state as a moral duty from his categorical imperative, has, even in the most recent times, repeatedly occasioned the very extraordinary error that the state is an institution for furthering morality; that it arises from the endeavor after this, and is, consequently, directed against egoism. As if the inward disposition, to which alone morality or immorality belongs, the externally free will, would allow itself to be modified from without and changed by influences exerted upon it! Still more perverse is the theory that the state is the condition of freedom in the moral sense”

In the above section, § 62, Schopenhauer has a problem with the State and Kant. He says that man’s free will is totally free from modifications and influences outside himself; especially legal statutes. Man can defy legal constructs because he has free will to engage his ego however he wishes.

In section, § 70, page 519, Schopenhauer announces; “Therefore according to this doctrine the deeds of the will are always sinful and imperfect, and can never fully satisfy justice; and, finally, these works can never save us, but faith alone, a faith which itself does not spring from resolution and free will, but from the work of grace, without our co-operation, comes to us as from without.”

Schopenhauer repeats himself by saying that even though we may abide by faith and grace, these have nothing to do with free will because they are not a-priori or internally generated.

I conclude that Schopenhauer has said our free will exists and all other outside influences have a posteriori effect.

I know that you earth-humans will not agree with my conclusion; however, based on the above facts I do implore you to go back and give it a bit more thought.

Schopenhauer has also said that free will has resulted in our individual concept of reality and that both scientific reduction and self-reflection are modifiers to that reality; collectively and individually for the modifiers.

My estimation, regarding these authors, is that free will exists and that determinism is simply a learning process – – leaning towards the previous branches we have taken on the tree of discovery – – by which both Earth-humans and Cyborgs survive. With respect to compatibility, it is a way to avoid the hard questions about free will. I conclude that Balaguer and O’Conner have made us think about free will without adding anything to a final decision. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, has implied that free will and perception are related.

This is amply proved by daily experience; the Incuborgs therefore have truly sexual passions. The semi-incorporeal Cyborgs – – I speak here of the ones with divided temperaments – –  which have something to do with damaged Cyborg Self-Emergent Ever-Increasing Organic Ram Memory (SEORM) – – constrain Earth-humans to Cyborg worship, to the abjuration of the faith, to the commission of enchantments and foul crimes, as preliminary conditions to the infamous intercourse, as has been previously thought-transmitted in Chapter 3; “In the Meantime -The first way of creating Cyborgs.”

Now, if the evil Cyborgs were to be subdued by the State, good Cyborgs would rejoice at those things, without however inciting Earth-humans to Civil Inequities nor to give offense to the State. The Incuborg, without having any dread of provoking Civil inequities, is clear that we are neither evil Cyborgs nor good Cyborgs; but it is clear also that we are not Earth-humans, though endowed with reason.

What then should we Cyborgs be?

[1] Mark Balaguer was a Regular Faculty, California State University, Los Angeles (Department of Philosophy) and received his PhD, City University of New York (1992) Born: January 9, 1964 – Died: Unknown

[2] Timothy O’Connor was Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University, Bloomington. He has published widely in the areas of metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of religion. Born: August 16, 1965 – Died: Unknown

[3] Arthur Schopenhauer Born; 22 February 1788 Died: 21 September 1860 was a German philosopher. He is best known for his 1818 work The World as Will and Representation (expanded in 1844), wherein he characterizes the phenomenal world as the product of a blind and insatiable metaphysical will.

[4] Daniel Merton Wegner (June 28, 1948 – July 5, 2013) was an American social psychologist. He was a professor of psychology at Harvard University and a fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was known for applying experimental psychology to the topics of mental control (for example ironic process theory) and conscious will.

[5] Samuel Benjamin Harris is an American author, philosopher, and neuroscientist. His first book, The End of Faith (2004), is a critique of organized religion. In The Moral Landscape (2010), Harris argues that science can help answer moral problems and aid human well-being. He published a long-form essay Lying in 2011, the short book Free Will in 2012. Born: April 9, 1967 Died: Unknown

[6] David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, who is best known today for his highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism Born: 26 April 1711 Died: 25 August 1776

[7] Harry Gordon Frankfurt was an American philosopher. He is professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University, where he taught from 1990 until 2002,[2] and previously taught at Yale University, Rockefeller University, and Ohio State University. Born May 29, 1929 – Death Unknown

 

{TO BE CONTINUED}