I
fear now that you should make a great effort of comprehension.
Because which follows is addressed only to the virtuous woman…
We
are obliged to exist. This means that we exist to serve, serve our
parents and society.
Even
if we had a free will we cannot be held accountable to exist and to
exist with defects designated as such by the society, since
everything is imposed on us, our body, our intellect, our educators,
the environment in which we live, the rules of life and social game.
More
especially as we are born virgins from cultural meanings, meanings
which will be then implanted by the teachers who do not control
education.
To
have a free will, it is to be able to judge freely without nobody
intervening in this judgment. But how could this be possible since we
are born virgins from cultural meanings? This implies that all that
will enable us to judge our actions on the world comes from the
society which educates us.
Moreover,
using this strange "free will" to impose on someone to
exist, is it very relevant?
To
exist with so-called "free will" to impose on others to
exist with "free will"! Isn't this more than paradoxical?
Can
we impose the existence of the "free will" by imposing the
existence, but also under any conditions of body, life, environment,
to that one on which we will impose it? Can we impose the "free
will"?
Is
free will individually useful? Is it useful socially? And especially
to claim, in utter denial multiple demonstrations of the
impossibility, that it can exist, to what and for whom is it used?
To
impose on someone to exist is the action that should be considered
intensely, carefully, methodically, logically, rationally. And if
"free will" must intervene somewhere, it is for this
crucial action, essential.
Are
we sexed freely? Do we use the "free will" to copulate? And
does the result of this copulation require the free will? How could
the "free will" settle in the cell-division system that
produces us, us and other animal species in the same way?
If
a (pseudo) creative god (or my own mother) imposes on me a "free
will", do I have one because he decides it, whereas I did not
ask to play his game of the Life with his conditions? Why should I be
punished not to want to accept his rules, whereas I am obliged to
exist in this game of Life, this imposed social game?
Not
only is existence imposed, but all the conditions of existence. These
conditions are absolutely not mastered by one who uses his own
so-called "free will" to impose this life not controlled by
a person other than himself, because the child is another.
The
child is also, as soon as he exists, the associate of a large number
of other individuals. It is the base of a society to be made up of
associates, theoretically with equal shares!
How
could we have a "free will" if the one whom us “gratifies”
of a "free will" violates the conditions of this granting
by imposing us the Life which would contain this supposedly "free
will"?
Why
an elephant would he not need "free will" to make choices?
Why a child of twelve, not smarter than a matriarch elephant, would
he have one?
How
a robot, able to do the same types of choices than me, wouldn't he
have a free will? If a robot has a "free will", am I a
machine?
Is
the behavior of the human beings different in the propagation of the
Life than the one of the other animals? Why would we have a free will
and not them? Why the self-awareness of the elephant, the dolphin,
the dog, etc., wouldn't confer them a free will if we do have one?
Which
is the utility of free will in our choices? In what the choice
between two actions would it require this something of individual
that would be the free will? Why a child of less than five years, or
an animal, which chooses an action among several wouldn't need "free
will" contrary to an adult?
Why
do education confer the responsibility, therefore the "free
will", since the law punishes after a certain age?
Einstein
and his IQ of 160, has he more "free will" than a moron
charged with a petty crime, while himself took part in "the
bomb" and produced three children including two severely
disabled?
Can
the universe without god mechanically produce a "free will"?
Can I contravene the laws of the universe? Can I activate my neurons
myself? Do I have access consciously, intimately, precisely to what
occurs under my skin?
If
scientists had not told me, how would I know that I possess a brain?
I do not feel more my brain that I do not feel my liver. How function
my thought, my conscience, my free will? I do not know it. How can I
be free to use that of which I am unaware of functioning, and where
it is located?
Am
I free to use the consciousness that one imposed to me? To impose
life is to impose the freedom which goes with. How by imposing
freedom can it be effectively freedom?
Rather
than trying to analyze a possible "free will", it is better
to find out what kinds of freedoms we may possibly possess.
Three
types of freedom are possible:
Social
freedom is the fact that our actions are limited by those of the
others.
Freedom
of action, our autonomy, is the fact that our actions are limited by
our motor skills in our environment.
The
third type, mental freedom is impossible, because no action allows
me to consider it, there is no possibility so that the thought
activates the thought, since the thought is the product of the
internal material activities massively parallel of myriads of
particles gathered in atoms, associated into molecules, then in alive
cells all simultaneously, and out of consciousness.
Thought
is a process resulting.
The
impossibility of free will begins with the obligation to exist with
our body, its weaknesses, its impossibilities, and our limited mental
faculties, all of different values depending on the individual,
and all subject to education.
We
have a body and an intellect provided by an automatic genesis. We do
not have access precisely, intimately, and consciously to what occurs
under our skin.
If
I put you in A and I tell you to go to B, do you feel free, knowing
you can do almost what you want to reach B, but you cannot do
anything but to comply? (A being the obligatory birth, and B being
obligatory death.)
All
that is in the mind is memory since all is repeated daily. Knowledge
is memory, as well as the mental functions. The feelings and the
conscience themselves are repeated therefore memory. All that is
memory, is matter, and more precisely an organization of matter.
The
free will is impossible:
– It
is not me which activates my neurons.
– I
am the resultant of the trajectory of all the particles which compose
me.
– The
universe cannot make mechanisms going against its own mechanisms.
The
brain is a black box: the ideas are built into my brain without my
knowing how, and my will is itself built in my brain without I know
more.
The
"I" that says, "I have the will" is also a
construction of the brain built without that the "I" is for
anything in this construction.
My
brain is matter and it works physicochemically. All kinds of choices
we humans can do (there is only one and that is the weighted choice),
I am able to program it in my computer, because I am a computer
specialist. Is the computer other things than a machine, a free man?
How
my thought or my will can they be free since my teachers wrote in my
thought what they wanted or tried?
I
think in French and Chinese think in Chinese.
My
eyes are cameras, my ears microphones. What occurs in my brain is
inaccessible for me. If one had not told me, I would never have known
that I had neurons. How can I control what I am unaware of?
Today,
old adult, I stand before a video and my brain registers phrases that
I did not know in advance (and so much better for my curiosity).
These phrases are installed in me without I am for something, I mean
precise and conscious installation.
I
simply placed my microphones which are my ears in front of the
speakers of my computer, and the installation in my mentality and its
transformation into something of more or less comprehensible is
automatic.
If
I ask "2 x 2", you will understand and be able to answer
"4". You will do it, because I awoke in your brain this
childish question that another has installed, but you shall know
nothing of the way it appears and where it is located.
Same
for the answer "4", you do not know where is this response
in the neural mass and how it is structured or how to produce this
response. It is automatic.
All
our ideas come to what we call "consciousness" on the same
principle, we know nothing of their manufacture. But we do not know
more about consciousness itself, which is an automatic mechanism
similar.
When
we say "I", this "I" is made in the same way just
as mysterious, and we do not know what it represents, as it is
sometimes the entire body, sometimes a part of the brain, ego, me, or
anything else, according to our mood.
Not,
I do not have a free will, it is perhaps disheartening for those
which think themselves intelligent, but I know that it is impossible
and I prefer the knowledge.
A
person without "free will" must not be educated as a person
who would own one. Similarly, a person created divinely would be
totally different from a person that results from the simple
functioning of a mechanical universe.
If
free will existed, nobody would worry of child education. Even
believers, who believe firmly in free will, insist that their
children to be educated without talking to them about evolution, or
what they call propaganda about atheism or simply rationalism.
Even
believers educate their children in their religious morality. Moral
education and free will are yet perfectly antithetical.
Is
that somewhere in the world, legislators, judges, required of
official science to make the rational demonstration of the existence
of free will?
If
only one proof of its non-existence were necessary, that one would be
enough.
This
demonstration is impossible to establish and, as the society is not
ready to lock itself to congenital stupidity and complicity of
procreation crime without intent to ensure the well-being of its own
members, so they prefer to perpetuate ancestral stupidity.
We
born ... If we have zero knowledge, we cannot choose nor reason. If
we have one knowledge, we have no more choice possible, and still no
possibility of reasoning. If we have two knowledge, we can only
choose between the two, but not to reason.
If
we have N knowledge, we can only choose between these N and we can
maybe start to think, but falsely. We always lack of knowledge to
reason just. And we die...
But
with what do we reason? Do we control this system which makes it
possible to reason, and which one imposed on us?
"Life
serves only already existing ones.” Create a sensitive and
conscious existence is to create ill-treatment, pain, misery, death
(for the rest, it is normal). How a creator, a female creator, a
mother, can she take risks on the back of a person, her child?
All
the human ones, or almost, are believers. Without belief to block
intelligence, no life. Ladies, have you ever thought to native
contract or to ensure your child before you conceive it? No, because
you are believers, the chance was necessary so that I think of it,
and so that you read it here.
The
free will is necessarily identical for all individuals who are
supposed to have one, and for this reason it would be necessary that
each one has the same information and the same knowledge to make a
decision free and accurate, because freedom is that to make the right
choice for oneself, which cannot be different for everyone under the
same conditions.
The
"free will", the "free will" function if it were
to exist, is associated with knowledge. Knowledge is part of the
"free will". What implies that there is no "free will"
since knowledge is acquired and are never the same ones according to
the individuals.
Free
will has no age, otherwise it's not free will. "Free will"
cannot be based on any learning. "Free will" must be innate
and suffice on its own.
Free
will is not voluntary, it is not a mental function freely accepted by
him who own it, from where the aporia of its existence.
Free
will has no use for practical life. A robot can process knowledge in
the same way that a human.
The
free has only the social “utility” to be able to punish and get
rid of the cumbersome people, and to store them in places restricted
at a minimal cost, whereas these people were created, accepted, and
educated by the society in places chosen by the society, and all
that, in a not controlled way.
The
thought, the brain, is a book in which everyone can write, one must
just be close to the "owner".
You
claim to be able to control your mind through a supposed "free
will", while you are unable to finely control your body, you're
maybe not ambidextrous, you are not a juggler, you have trouble
coordinating your body, the one you have under the eyes.
And
you want to make us believe that you control the enormous parallelism
of the simultaneous operation of your neurons which all are alive (as
long as they did not die) to linearly produce thoughts, sentences.
You
do not even know consciously, intimately, how your locomotion
functions, it is something which you acquired in childhood and which
is a perfect automatism, uncontrolled finely and consciously.
And
it is the same for the production of the words, as well as phonation
than writing, which are mechanisms acquired in childhood with
difficulty.
And
it is the same for the production of the words, both phonation and
writing, which are mechanisms acquired in childhood with difficulty.
May
it be that the free will is an invention? If it is one, for what is
it used? For which reasons, if there are several, the idea of the
"free will" was it imagined by the human ones? The need to
give a sense of responsibility to the person whom one educates in his
own education. The need to get rid of a person who disturbs.
The
society hides its inability to educate the child, hides his
incompetence, his ignorance of the human being, his dictatorial rule,
proclaiming that uneducated person by social educators, so itself,
and forced to exist by itself, also has a "free will". It's
convenient ... Especially idiot!
We
are not programmable strictly as a computer. Our education is our
programming. Nobody knows perfectly educate a child.
But
it is not by deluding us on our functioning that we can improve this
education. It is necessary to admit what we are, our mechanisms. We
do not have a "free will", we are not resulting from a
divine creation, but from the mechanisms of the universe. We
function. We must know this process precisely.
It
is not the belief that decides our functioning, these are the facts,
and these facts must be described rationally, and this is certainly
not a believer who can describe them using reason. Thus it is "free
will".
The
functioning of our thought is a fact which must be described by
reason and not by belief. The universe is not a fairy tale.
The
question some are asking is this: since "free will" does
not exist, why worry about the world because without "free will"
nothing can change?
My
answer: if you leave a virus in your computer, it will function
through. But then, why remove it, since without "free will"
nothing can change, and that the computer does not have a "free
will"? However you do it…
This
makes thousands of years that humans believers, the majority of
hundred billion that existed, had the brain parasitized by a mental
virus.
It
is always time to remove this virus of the head of the children who
are educated daily, and to try to remove it in the head of the adults
who could possibly accept this mental operation, probably painful for
a believer.
Ourselves,
we are continuous systems in constant modification. The texts which
we read and the events that occur in our lives change us. These
sentences, which you read, change you simply because the words are
connected differently in your brain, whereas you know all the words
individually.
We
are not irremovable entities, we do not have a spirit injected by a
god in a body which would incarnate this spirit.
Why
recognize our true functioning? Which impact the error, the lie, the
refusal do they have on the individual and the society?
The
thought is a kind of display of sensations, as the display on the
computer screen. Does the display can act on the software? Of course
not, the thought does not act on the material that produces thought.
Free will is impossible.
The
free will does not exist, you have read several demonstrations and
probably have understood them, if you wished it (mechanical desire),
and it is because it does not exist that we do not control much of
the social life, since we do not even control our individual
functioning in an intimate way, precise, and conscious.
As
for the society, I suppose that you all noticed that humanity is in
perpetual war since the tribes exist. Now that we know that the Earth
is round, limited, and overpopulated, what is the interest to
continue in the same direction and to make war for nothing? Are we
still basic animals? Our little more intellectual does it profit so
worthless?
This
is neither the religious desire to invent guilt of those who did not
ask to exist (the reason for this invention is obvious), nor the
social need to lock up people (who still not asked to exist) in
cells-shitters which makes that free will exists.
The
free will, if it existed, would ask for a scientific demonstration.
Nothing's easier ! That the society (legislators, justice, and
lawyers) asks that this demonstration be made. Meanwhile, free will
does not exist, and any doubt should benefit the accused, gentlemen
lawyers, gentlemen defendants, take advantage of it!
If
"one" lend you extraordinary abilities of intelligence,
strength, beauty, ask yourself why and what sauce "one"
want to eat you.
Free
will is one of these fabulous abilities that "one" lends to
our brains to use us. Mom, Dad and the Society are the only
profiteers of this sycophancy.
You
will do the same when you will become one of them. But that does not
arrange the world to distort the Truth, see where we are in this
planetary chaos!
Everything
is always about education. Do we make a good education on a good
human model? According to whether we are the result of a creation or
a simple functioning of the universe (which I call universolism), we
cannot be the same so-called intelligent entity.
A
creator would have wanted us in his image with features and a "free
will"! While the universe has absolutely no intention, and we
are the result of mechanisms. Two beings created differently cannot
be similar, so education cannot be the same, nor justice, nor the
government.
However,
we are educated, justiciable, and governed according to the
creationist principle, and that is why we are in a great universal
mess. The human world is like the universe, without free will, it
work, and will work better (for us) with ten thousand (10,000)
intelligent beings rather than ten-billion howling beasts.
A
ruler of the world should know, as closely as possible, how function
the people he governs. It's the same for legislators, judges, and
especially educators because educators educate future leaders, future
legislators, future judges, especially the future educators
themselves.
If
education is distorted, everything comes together. Seven billion
people are on our way, they are part of the description of the road
we travel. Seven billion erroneous descriptions while we spend our
lives among humans, it cannot function properly.
If
the cause of this erroneous description is intentional, dishonest,
whereas one asks me to be honest myself, how this society made up of
human educated dishonestly and wrongfully can it work correctly?
Refuse
to admit that free will is impossible is stupid, it is our inner
workings, this resulted in our absurd world, rotten, warrior, muddy,
miry, insane, composed of idiots and slavers who set heads in the
sand for nothing, because life has no meaning.
We
are forced to exist, forced to education, forced to buy our bodies,
forced to suffer (all), and forced to die (all) without exception,
whereas we invented the Rights, morality, and ethics.
You
punish your own child because you do not know how to educate it.
Yuck! You punish your associates, forced to exist for your service,
because your teachers are incompetent. Yuck!
If
you have a free will, why are you timid, anxious, feverish, nervous,
distressed, phobic, unhappy, sad? Why do you have emotions (i.e.
uncontrolled)? Why are you that you do not want to be? Etc.
Do
you think that people who have IQs of 60, 80, 100, 120, and 160 have
the same "free will", the same wills, and the same
capacities of choice, but then! what differentiates them?
I
deleted my free will inadvertently, can you give me the algorithm of
free will, and the method to re-implant it in my nervous system,
please? How's that, no ! You claim that I am not free to delete it!
Thought
works as hunger and thirst, it's not we who decide to be hungry and
thirsty, nor think.
To
whom should it not be revealed that free will does not exist? Idiots,
children, workers, to those who are religious or not? Who decides
what others should know or not, what truths or lies they must know?
The
invention of "free will" cannot be linked to morality
because we are forced to exist, which would be at least amoral for an
animal, and totally immoral for an intelligent being, sensitive, and
aware of what he does.
The
gods are used to get rid of the idea of responsibility that parents
have, women essentially, to have put their child into the world. The
creation is divine, human reproduction is desired, required by the
deity! So the child, disabled or not, cannot complain to his parents
to be in the terrestrial shit because the deity has willed it so!
And
to get rid of the idea of responsibility with respect to the society,
it's the concept of free will who eliminate their guilt feelings. If
the parents educate their child sideways, then with his free will,
the child, handicapped or not, becomes responsible in front of its
deity and human beings. Good riddance !
In
conclusion: Before you blame anyone, you must know the functioning of
the human being, and thought exactly. We need to know that free will
is impossible. The universe cannot make mechanism against its own
mechanisms.
We
cannot strictly blame anybody, but we can pretend to be angry, we can
be ironic. Once we understand the mechanism in which we are embedded,
absurd system, causing misery, suffering and death, and all for
nothing, then we can try to stop the process.
The
irony has always served. We can thus say that we blame our parents,
berate them, call them to account, and then explain that they are
deficient mechanisms generated by the universe, and that they would
have done better to abstain, if they had been able. Then we ask them
to participate in debriefing human beings…
Larousse
(French dictionary) definition of Free Will: “ability of the will
to determine itself”.
Obviously,
the will cannot determine itself without existing first (and freely),
which makes absurd this definition.
And
the will would not be enough to explain the "free will" of
people of different ages, therefore from different knowledge and
cultures.
The
will does something, and that something is important, since this
something is learned. If you know nothing, on what exercise your
will? Are you free from information that one requires you to learn,
and mental functions to treat this knowledge that one forces you to
have by obligation to exist?
If
you defend the existence of free will, despite what you read or hear,
against all odds, is it to defend our human world, the beauty of its
wars, its diseases, its millions even billion disabled, pollution it
causes, its perpetual misery?
How
could it generates worse than all this, if truth were accepted by
all?
If
there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a
new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:
“Now
that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? ”
Dead
end
E.
Berlherm (May 2016)
