Free will and the obligation to exist

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)