No, I did not say they have nothing to do with one another. I said that a person's will and decisions are not the same as the power to actualize something.
Okay, so we both agree that the decisions are not the same as the results of those decisions.
Machines produce actualized things all of the time; however, machines have no intrinsic consciousness from which to say they have any kind of will
There are two slightly different concepts of actualization put in play here. When we say that the universe actualized something, such as a lightning bolt appearing, we do not assume there is intent or consciousness behind it. But when humans do so, such as programming the machine, we assume that there is a conscious will or decision or intent behind it because human existence tends to be conflated with consciousness. Do we agree on that?
If we both do agree on that, then what else have I said in the past posts that you disagree with?
however, energy and power are not decisions. To conflate these two
I do not conflate them. However, I do see a pretty simple process at play when it comes to human manifestation:
Human decision to actualize X -> effort to actualize X -> X actualized.
Without the decision at the beginning, we have the following instead:
Effort to actualize ?? -> ??
And then this begs the question, what is being actualized? The decision is needed on the part of the human to start the process. (This does not apply to the universe, because the universe is a big bundle of workings according to the various "rules" of the universe, and whatever original event(s) set it all in motion. The difference between humans and the universe is that humans have the ability to break that chain of events that only follow the rules, and do something (almost) entirely random instead, or just plain follow a different set of rules than what should have been predetermined purely by the mechanics of the universe instead) Yet, I also understand that the decision is not the same as the result. After all, I could decide to get up and drink a glass of water, but then never do so.
Without a sound grounding in biochemistry; however, it is difficult to appreciate this, though.
No, it's pretty easy to appreciate this without such a background. Physicists have to appreciate similar concepts when talking about materials and architecture, for instance. Just putting a bunch of molecules together doesn't make for a working sky scraper. Hell, anyone who's tried to build anything more complex than a paper airplane should be able to appreciate the basic concept of "increasingly increasing" (compounding, exponential, whatever) complexity as more factors are added.
You're the one who brought up will.
Actually, Akenu brought it up originally. And if we had kept discussing for a long period, I'd have suggested that we could create a different thread about that too.
Conversations about ethics are really conversations about what we should or should not do; therefore, ethical choices are predicated by and contingent on what we will and will not do.
Yet conversations about will and free will, but which ignore ethics, can also be had. Which is what we're doing now, since we're not talking about situations that people find ethical. Plus, there's that more specific aspect of the influencing others, and then the third issue of doing so psychically.
If our choices are already determined, then what we will and will not do is determined. Since things are predicated on this, I would say it is important.
"If I have made a choice to do something, then it should already be deteremined that I will probably attempt to bring that choice to fruition."
Seems fairly obvious. But that discusses nothing about ethics. It just discusses Will. Making choices is a part of ethics, but it is hardly the same as ethics, anymore so than a discussion about making choices is the same as a discussion about art or music or mathematics.
So how do we tie it back into a discussion of the ethics of psychically influencing other people? Just saying "we have free will, so that's our discussion of ethics" isn't really cutting it.
For instance! Is it okay to psychically influence another person by making them think more positively about themself so that they'll be happier in life? Well, that answer actually has less to do with psychic influences than one would think, because it can be generalized back to general ethics regarding when and how it is acceptable for one person to influece another (having to do with multiple factors such as 1) relationship between people, 2) conscious buy-in of recipient, 3) degrees of help and/or harm to recipient, 4) emotional responses of interested 3rd party people/groups who are watching, 5) emotional responses of disinterested 3rd party people/groups who are watching, 6) how society at large might be affected, etc). It's largely the same question as whether it is okay to yell at a person and say lots of mean things to their face in order to make them feel worse about themselves. So that's not really much of a helpful discussion to the specific issue of metaphysics.
What is helpful is a specific discussion about how psychic influence differs from normal influence, and that's mostly in the "awareness of being influenced" of affected individuals. Yet, I could then also point out, as I have before, that I can and do influence other people using purely mundane methods without affected people being aware of it. So is a discussion of awareness anything new to the topic? Not really.
So are we at the point where a discussion of the ethics of psychially influencing people is really just a smoke screen for a more generic discussion about ethics? Or can you think of any specific aspects that relate purely to the topic of magic and not to the topic of the mundane?
How about the difference between internal versus external influences? All mundane influences are inherently external to the recipient, whereas psychic influences can bypass that and directly influence another person. Is that worth discussing (beyond the mechanics of it, alone)?
Or is there any other part of the ethics that you'd like to discuss, even if it can be discussed in the more general mundane category as well?