/lit/ - Literature

>>20450159
>right brain
This implies we can perceive more free will if we are right brain dominant. Right brain audio and visual entrainment would theoretically provide this.
>animal judgment is held to be instinctive since they lack intellect
Lack of impulse control. Man can be compared to monkey. If he doesn't resist his urges, his will runs all over the place. It escapes him. He loses control of himself to his urges. He loses control over food, his productivity, and his mind when it comes to sex.

Cultivating free will goes hand in hand with resisting impulse. Monkey thinks he can do whatever he wants. It always comes with consequences.

Free Will exists in relation to Providence and Fate.

You are free in so far as you assimilate to higher order principals. That to which God will bestow his providence on you, in so far as you are capable of receiving.

If you reject higher order principals and that which assimilates you to the good, and act on your base desires, the more likely you will be "predestined" to whatever Fate you gravitate towards (i.e become NPC).

So it is by virtue of the intellect that you have free will. I'm not sure how you would characterise morphic field in relation to intellect.

>>20450547
>referencing self-referential literature to define free will
Here we have a prime example of monkey, ladies and gentlemen

>>20450553
Explain yourself.

>>20450159
psychology and philosophy are a very dangerous and midwitty combination.

>>20450563
I don't need to explain anything. Man is the animal; he can act like an animal and be manipulated like one. Therefore, it's more useful to study the animal than reference literature created by the animal.

>>20450569
>he can act like an animal and be manipulated like one
He can also not be, therefore it's useful to study the "literature" created by man. So you need to explain yourself.

>>20450572
You had the impulse to reply to me. Why wasn't your willpower strong enough to resist?

>>20450573
Resist what? It wasn't an impulse, it was a choice.

>>20450577
No, you're rationalizing it now. I made you doubt your belief and rather than you staying firm, you replied. You lacked impulse control. That's the point I'm getting at. And for the most part, that's all there is to it

>>20450583
Babbys first first free will. Listen kid, read more, you will work it out eventually.

>>20450588
If you knew you'd get nothing out of it, why'd you reply?

>>20450583
>rationalizing it
Rationalizing what?
If you don't explain yourself in the next post, then I will "choose" not to reply to you. It's a free choice of man to engage in debate and ask questions in the hope of uncovering some fragment of truth. It's one of the activities that makes man free.
>I made you doubt your belief
Asking someone to explain their own rejection to an idea is not equivalent to doubting your own belief. And even if I did doubt my own belief, why is that a problem? Is it better to believe something that's wrong than to ask questions? How does that imply lack of impulse control?

>>20450588
I wasn't that guy, but its fun to watch you squirm.

>>20450494
You act as if impulsivity is a bad thing. Using reason is fine, but there's a limit to its use which leads to development of unsfalsibile claims about reality, this, in turn, leads to epistemic stagnation, as nothing than can be discovered that might improve society and we end up with civilization petering off in the distance, and eventually dying. Using gut instincts is much less risky and is what always was there in the first place.