Sorry, but I'm not completely buying it.

Biology directs much in the way of physiological function.
It is true that I have little or no direct control over my body when it comes to homeostasis, protein synthesis, or the like.
Still, Science differentiates between voluntary and involuntary for good reason.


Does biology satisfactorily grant practical insight on consciousness?

How does your view of biological imperatives work within the arena of quantum mechanics?

Do you see greater magic as merely a biological function?

The more I think about this question the more ridiculous it seems. I can do whatever I please at any moment.

This is something to ask a prisoner or somebody in a wheelchair.

...which goes straight to the ironic question :

so, if the "free will doesn't exist", what about the existence of Greater Magic then ?


That is too funny...

So because you postulate that magic is real (without saying why), free will is automatically real as it is a prerequisite? That's reverse logic.

My point is that free will is, like a number of other concepts we think are real such as meaning, deserving, right and wrong, a load of bullshit that is without relevance to the world. We are what we are, and that's all that we are. Fact is, however, that such a seemingly bleak view is ok, because it all feels the same. You're still happy with eating and fucking and sleeping like an animal should be, and that's enough (even if happiness is nothing more than biological approval of your circumstances).

Without saying why ! I don't see why I would have to. To me, if I was saying "free will doesn't exist", so I would also automatically question the existence of Greater Magic.. However I am here because Satanism is about this nightside dealing with it. Voilà, some answers were asked, this is mine.


Your point here is yours, and if you find happiness with that point, well, this is the goal of course. To cannot grasp certain things in life are, I would say, limitations, and yes we certainly all have some. But the thing to generalize this limitation to all individual's life is certainly not possible.

"You're still happy with eating and fucking and sleeping like an animal should be, and that's enough"

Woof, but I would be here sad to limit myself to this.

If you find biological reality limiting, I am sorry, but you're still made of flesh.

Two things:

You're still using reverse logic. You can't start with an assumption and postulate that all requirements for your assumption to be true are therefore true by default. That's called faith, and doesn't work very well.

Second, the train of logic you're following isn't even the case. Will independent of biology is not required for magic. If it were, then magic really would be impossible - and amusingly enough, every ritual LaVey mentions exists to serve biological needs (lust, greed, hatred), only further proving my point.

Voluntary biological actions are still biological actions aren't they? They still originated in the trigger of neurons directing the muscles to move. All involuntary means is that your conscious mind did not have to direct it, because your unconscious mind takes care of it.

Does biology satisfactorily grant practical insight on consciousness?

Sure. Consciousness is the byproduct of having developed senses and sensory processing. It seems like something profound but it's really a pretty mundane thing.

Just to advance counter-argue: you can still have consciousness without external senses only because you still have the sensory processing organs. However, I'd say it would be a pretty fucked up processor if it didn't even have memories of external senses to work with, and its consciousness would be highly debatable.

How does your view of biological imperatives work within the arena of quantum mechanics?

What do molecular physics really have to do with it? Yes, they're the template, but that's like asking how my preference for eating lobster is affected by the ocean's chemistry. It's way too reductionist to be practically applicable.

But if you insist, the answer is pretty simple. Quantum physics don't demonstrate any change in the macro-model of the universe, since they only apply to the micro-universe. In other words, just because we know crazy shit happens on really tiny scales doesn't mean our overall view of the world on the "normal" scale is in any way changed. To assume it does would be a leap in logic that is unwarranted, just like it would be a leap in logic to assume that some new discovery in ocean chemistry should affect how tasty lobster is.

Do you see greater magic as merely a biological function?

Since only biological organisms use it, yes. If you can program a computer to succesfully carry out a magical working I may change my mind.

Who said this ?

Then, who spoke about this kind of "will independant of biology"?

my only point: what one cannot grasp ( ideas, failure to understand or whatever ) can be called a limitation, his own one, but nowhere in hell he could generalize it to everyone. What one has experienced is validated to him, and this is certainly not faith.

"what if you had free will" ? > " Well I'd use it while some have a hard time trying to say it doesn't exist, and this because they aren't just able ?"

See, since I'm back, I read some threads in general, and see several funny things, like people finding so Satanic and Elite to go on a low paying job, describing it like they have reached the top. The worst is that because their situation, they have a hard time imagining that other ones can have more.. To them, it's like this doesn't exist. So this could also give such threads like: "if you were a Satanist with 1 million dollars, what would you do ?", and then saying "hah, thanks for the answers, but this doesn't exist"....



Here again, I was pointing my finger at the moon, you were looking at the finger. Nothing in my original answer was speaking about this.

Or rather, ONLY live with the enjoyable ones Life would be even more awsome were I not a 'slave' to sleep, food, disease, age, other 'limiting' conditions that come with being a human.

Ah... okay, no biggie.

The replies and arguments to this topic are surprising, I expected that these concepts would be somewhat easy to grasp.

Biology doesn't need to cease to exist for free-will to come into play.

Have you stopped to consider that at a certain point of evolutionary progress that a mental will can make a choice to change it's own biology, frivilously or otherwise, and that this choice constitutes "free-will?"

I think you're focusing way too much on the "free" and far too less on the "will" part of this term.

I've always seen "free-will" as meaning the ability to freely will into existence new patterns of behavior within ones self rather than being a living statue.

Free is a generalization. A more open ended version of choices, rather than preset instinct.

Need does not negate choice. Limits do not remove the ability to overcome them.

What you suggest is that anything short of absolute omnipotence is absolute impotence. That's kind of ridiculous.

In conclusion I am sticking my fingers in my ears and sticking my tongue out at you:

I am absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. I'm done.

NANNER NANNER!

This is probably the most ridiculous argument made here.

Have you stopped to consider that at a certain point of evolutionary progress that a mental will can make a choice to change it's own biology, frivilously or otherwise, and that this choice constitutes "free-will?"

You're trying desperately to envision some scenario in which you are not merely serving biological needs, but all you're demonstrating is a lack of understanding of biology.

If your body made the decision to alter itself, then...you have your answer.

What you suggest is that anything short of absolute omnipotence is absolute impotence.

I said what now?

I have demonstrated that the very concept of free will is a silly notion that doesn't even exist. That has nothing to do with power.

The thing is, you'll never notice that you have no free will because it's perfectly natural to be as you are - a human with a certain limited set of options and desires. It's also fine to be that way, most here seem to like the state.

Science is no longer science when it comments on things beyond the scope of its methods.

Biology and its supporting sciences (chemistry, physics) have no account to give of free will. It is a non-entity as far as these sciences are concerned.

It doesn't follow from this that there's absolutely no such thing as free will.

Nor would anyone here say that it follows that it's an entity that transcends biology.

All that follows is that insofar as behavior is an object of biology, its freedom is not relevant.

It may be relevant with respect to other considerations.

But maybe it would be helpful if you would define "free will" before telling me it doesn't exist. What exactly are you denying, and what are we affirming?

Once again it all depends on how you define "Will." And you have to wonder if "Will" can interrupt your own biology. There's certainly stories of people manipulating their bodies in very strange ways. Read The Exorcist (read, don't watch) sometime. All the documented cases of weird things happening to people, that are perfectly natural and seem a matter of "mind over matter." Perhaps in some way, Will can influence biology? Would that make it free? Perhaps not if you want to load on physics and other factors. We all obey the basic laws and motivations of the universe, after all.