This looks like some lovecraftian cosmicism in action. Chess is about logic, connections, aesthetics and bringing sth. to an end.
The O.P. has moved on.
Get #10 outta here lol
I just hope I don't come back into this universe after dying. That would be some acid trip stuff.
We're lucky to be human. It's an odd, fascinating existence and it took an endless tree of fathers and mothers continuing the "existing on earth" loop to spit you out of a womb at this time in the universe. The Earth won't stop orbiting the sun any time soon, but it sometimes feels like we're on the tipping point for humanity to collapse in the next millennium or so, what with the Earth's ecosystem rapidly dying.
Until then, there will always be someone looking for a game of chess.
There are no mouse slips in real life.
Why does either exist? It's all about gravity. What attracts things together.
With gravity, everything then has a purpose.
The universe may seem like it is mathematically balanced, but it's balanced only be gravity.
To create change, things cannot remain balanced.
A point is not constantly at the same place or at the same time.
A point is constantly moved by gravity.
Life and Chess moves with time and space.
Evolution is a moving point.
Evolution is warm.
So it all started with gravity that created charges and polarities, that caused motion. Something rubbed together and mass was created, that created more gravity. Gravity came from the unbalanced dust floating in the universe.
Gravity attracted more mass, that creates massive changes.
So the point is to create change.
Be the gravity that moves the chess pieces and unbalance the game, to give it more life.
Chess, life... it's all about state of mind.
The world can be seen as a game board, sure... but it can also be seen as a canvas.
Our free will decisions include how we choose to view life. We choose whether to characterize it as a "waste" or to instead delight in the experience of it and the supreme challenge of finding and creating meaning in it; this is a subjective, rather than objective evaluation that determines our level of suffering or enjoyment of life (usually far more than external circumstances), as well as highly influencing the development of our capacities on many levels.
The point of life is ours to make.
Seeking for the meaning of life to be "revealed" or discovered indicates the all too typical betrayal of individual sovereignty and abandonment of personal responsibility at a core level, which society, through highly developed mind control and social engineering, has been infected with... like a psychological virus.
The keys to satisfying states of mind are devotion to CARE... for self, others, truth, and morality... INTEGRALLY, and BALANCE and INTEGRITY in our relationships to food, water, sunshine, rest, exercise, livelihood, and each other.
The key to bliss is gratitude for all that is. Gratification of desire is nothing compared to the bliss of detachment.
By the way... Government IS Slavery - governmentisslavery.com
The canvas of life includes,
among many other things,
our internet footprint.
every mouse hover,
every bit .
Try to find things that make you laugh, and regularly practice a physical sport. The first video below made me laugh, and as for sports, I practice skateboarding. That's my short answer.
The long answer is contained within the following video; there is no free will, and that's a good thing: youtu.be/pCofmZlC72g
I watched this Sam Harris video in its entirety.
I did not find it compelling as an argument that free will doesn't exist. I did find many statements that I do agree with, and was pleased that Sam made it clear that "choices are important", and that there is a "universal morality" that needs to be respected. Too often the attack on the concept of free will is put forward as an argument for moral relativism.
My criticism with with his approach to this topic begins with the question: "Does free will exist?" in that it assumes that the idea of free will and that of cause-effect determinism are necessarily mutually exclusive, when in reality they are relative to different scopes of observation and circumstances.
Absolute cause-effect determinism is true at a level of scope beyond human apprehension, which I believe does stand as self-evident, even as the fundamental characteristic of existence. We apprehend that this is true, but NOT all of the factors.
However, human beings are only able to apprehend *some* of the causal factors of any given phenomenon, due to the fact that, as Bucky Fuller noted: "The universe is apprehended non-simultaneously."
Yet even though our knowledge of causes is necessarily limited, it doesn't mean we can't apprehend ANY, and in fact it should be clear that the causal factors we can apprehend are necessary and meaningful when it comes to making choices.
Arguing that free will doesn't exist due to determinism, is like arguing that the wall isn't solid due to physics. It may be true when looked at very closely, but zoomed out to the human experience of it, we still have to recognize the fact of its solidity and use the door if we wish to exit the room, despite the "illusory" nature of the solidity of the walls.
Throughout the presentation, especially toward the end, his rhetoric is not entirely consistent. He acknowledges the importance of choice... how can this be if there really isn't any choice? "Free will" choice is just the same as choice. If choice exists then it's by free will, otherwise it's not a choice. Oftentimes seemingly contradictory truths, where the articulation of some reconciliation or integration eludes us, we are tempted into thinking we *must* choose one from the other, and that one necessarily must negate the other, and so we try to force a way to explain the offending contradiction away. Often it's a matter of understanding that they apply in different contexts.
Choice is synonymous with free will. Acknowledging the importance of choice is to admit that free will exists on some level.
Of course choice is part of our experiential reality. Just because the causal factors of our decisions are, as Sam puts it: "an open system of varied influences" (which I agree with) doesn't mean that those factors aren't sufficiently complex and specified enough to provide a measure of apprehension and self-determined influence over ourselves and thought process, and our experience of consciousness; making decisions and experiencing consistent results from those decisions would seem to indicate that they are.
The better question isn't "Does free will exist", but to what degree, and within the confines of what context is it valid. Even Sam acknowledges that there are moral standards that we must hold adults accountable to, and the recognition of free will choice that this implies is enough for me. If you want to say that free will doesn't exist in an absolute sense, then sure, but that doesn't change the fact that I am still morally obligated to choose the right over the wrong, nor insulate one from the consequences of choices made.
This is all about what I refer to as sovereignty of consciousness.
How "in control" we are of our own thoughts... we need to recognize as it a matter of degree, not seen as impossible, otherwise we will fail to distinguish for instance between critical thinking and gullibility, throwing up our hands in futility at the prospect of discerning the difference.
Choices may in fact be illusory, like many other aspects of existence, yet, each day, we all face the choice of how we will spend our time, how we will react to any given situation, those choices being more or less self determined depending on how one's consciousness has been activated or lack thereof, and varies from person to person and may even vary throughout the life of an individual.
The apprehension or consideration of causal factors is largely outside the human range of perception, and even within that range, humans vary to a great degree in their ability to do so, depending not just on intelligence, but training. It is important to both recognize and develop our ability to do so.
Our decision making is the result of a complex series of causal factors, but some of those factors we can apprehend, and certainly enough of them to give meaning to the term free will.
"There is no difference in where your thoughts come from than if I was telling them to you... you're just witnessing them and have no control"
There is a very significant difference between where our thoughts arise and having someone else put them there.
"you can't take credit for your unconscious mental life"
Those who understand consciousness deeply understand that the magnitude of who we are at essence exists far below the conscious level. It is only in that most people have such a dim connection to the magnitude of their subconscious self that they can be fooled into thinking that that which arises from the subconscious is somehow foreign or external.
Though we cannot control all of the factors that influence our subconscious thought and reactions, we can wield influence to a "high" degree over it relative to the scale that is meaningful within the realm of human scope and experience, (especially compared to the influence of other people) and we can acknowledge the responsibility to do so consciously and conscientiously.
There were some good points at the end about how understanding the universe from the deterministic perspective can reduce hatred and judgment, and I think this is a valid point, and is an example of how disparate points of view or interpretations seemingly contradictory still offer value.
IMO this issue is about balanced mind-set and world view. A balanced world-view recognizes both the deterministic component (noting the factors we CAN apprehend such as natural law) and the random component of reality.... random being nothing more than a way of admitting complicated factors beyond one's ability to apprehend, making any outcome impossible to predict with accuracy, which, combined with our ability to apprehend *some* causal factors, produce the experience of free will. Mark Passio has a good presentation on this: