Ecmandu wrote:I made my own thread here because I didn't want this argument buried in other threads.
Firstly, I'll start with the operative definition of determinism:
"You couldn't have chosen any differently"
This is by definition: external
Defined by external forces outside our control.
So that means that freewill can only be defined internally, that it is forces within our control.
If anything is within our control, anything at all, we have freewill.
Now, what happens is that we can only possibly abstract determinism if we perceive an outside agent acting against our will.
Well, what if we have some agents that act internally to our will? That we have freewill?
Can we prove that freewill must exist?
Yes.
To perceive an external force acting against our will, we abstract the concept of determinism.
We all know determinism is true, it's self evident.
The question here is whether any measure of freewill is true!
The only way is to define the external by its limit.
We already know the external is determinism.
A total external is then absolute determinism.
What happens at a total external force?
Well we have to use a thought experiment to show the limit.
The thought experiment, completely consistent with the definition of determinism as the external force, is that a being can be able to calculate every reason that it thinks what it thinks and does what it does, externally.
So what happens here?
Since all of those reasons are 100% external to the being, the being has a 0% ability to abstract an internal.
What we know from the limit here, is that a state of absolute determinism is impossible for any possible hypothetical sentient being, which makes it a contradiction for any sentient being to claim absolute determinism.
Since we know that determinism doesn't work at 100%, we can be 100% positive that something else is also occurring besides absolute determinism.
This something else can only be freewill.
Thus, freewill exists.
Proof through definitions and self evident contradiction.
Prismatic567 wrote:Do you mean absolute free will? i.e. totally unconditional free will.
There is no such thing as absolute free will.
Whatever will is deemed free, it is always conditional upon human conditions.
Thus what exists is relative free will and there is no absolute free will.
The point is relative free will is, it is not relatively free all the time.
Note the research on subliminal advertisements where a consumer is made to think s/he has to free will to make a choice of what to buy without aware her purchases are influenced by rogue advertisers using subliminal advertisements.
Many a times, people think they are making free choice [and conscious efforts] but they are unaware they are being influenced by their instincts and other neural algorithms within their brain.
A theist may think s/he has a "free choice" to believe in God, but the reality is s/he is not aware s/he is being driven by a "zombie parasite" within the brain to cling to an illusory God.
Btw, the issue of free will is only critical for theists not non-theists. The theists insist humans has free will to commit all their defined evil and sins, and thus absolved God from anything to do with the acts of its subsequent creations.
Artimas wrote:Thinking is free.
I am not sure that is 'the' operative definition of determinism. I think it is better to focus on the whole. So, nothing else was every going to happen in that moment. All the causes led to that moment being as it was going to always be.Ecmandu wrote:
Firstly, I'll start with the operative definition of determinism:
"You couldn't have chosen any differently"
I think actually even your operative definition would not entail this. There is no need to separate out internal and external causes in determinism, though some certainly think of it this way. There is no need to say these are 'yours' and those are 'external' or 'not yours'. Just to argue that they all were inevitable.This is by definition: external
Defined by external forces outside our control.
Prismatic567 wrote:Artimas wrote:Thinking is free.
Do you think everything you think of re sex, hunger, to breathe and the rest of the primal impulses are free thoughts by your conscious thinking?
Yes, you can consciously think freely and create a sense of hunger, but instinctual hunger and its related thoughts of the need to eat is not a conscious thinking activity.
If we are contrasting humans and dogs, humans can even do things like shoot up heroin or smoke when they do have the knowledge that this increases their chances of death. And dogs can learn also that things that seemed desirable are not. They can learn it from us, they can learn it without us.Artimas wrote:I’ve already defeated the determinism argument based on satisfaction and instincts. Consciousness isn’t the same as the subconscious, its observable in nature. A dog doesn’t understand that chocolate is poison to them and so they eat it, that is a lack of free choice or option, no understanding or thought about it other than their falling for desire and their subconscious being in full control, which is determinism.
Up to a point, but then your desire to live will make you breath.I can control my breathing,
Animals don't debate - at least it is getting metaphorical to use debate as a description, even with primates and other mammals - but they sure can learn to override instincts and desires.I can choose not to breathe, what’s meditation? The fact that you can see a determinist system and understand what is the causation, should show you obvious as day that you have a will that is free, to think, consequence from choice is a whole other story. Do any other animals get to debate or understand their own instincts? I don’t think so.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:I am not sure that is 'the' operative definition of determinism. I think it is better to focus on the whole. So, nothing else was every going to happen in that moment. All the causes led to that moment being as it was going to always be.Ecmandu wrote:
Firstly, I'll start with the operative definition of determinism:
"You couldn't have chosen any differently"I think actually even your operative definition would not entail this. There is no need to separate out internal and external causes in determinism, though some certainly think of it this way. There is no need to say these are 'yours' and those are 'external' or 'not yours'. Just to argue that they all were inevitable.This is by definition: external
Defined by external forces outside our control.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:If we are contrasting humans and dogs, humans can even do things like shoot up heroin or smoke when they do have the knowledge that this increases their chances of death. And dogs can learn also that things that seemed desirable are not. They can learn it from us, they can learn it without us. We can imitate (rhetoric) or we can truly understand, which do you think grants an individual more power and opportunity?(the wills freedom)Artimas wrote:I’ve already defeated the determinism argument based on satisfaction and instincts. Consciousness isn’t the same as the subconscious, its observable in nature. A dog doesn’t understand that chocolate is poison to them and so they eat it, that is a lack of free choice or option, no understanding or thought about it other than their falling for desire and their subconscious being in full control, which is determinism.
And the reason I would not eat something poisoness, for exmaple, would be because I desire to live. There's nothing wrong with desire, per se. Just as there is nothing wrong with thoughts or will, per se, but any of these three can lead one to death and unpleasance.Up to a point, but then your desire to live will make you breath.I can control my breathing,Animals don't debate - at least it is getting metaphorical to use debate as a description, even with primates and other mammals - but they sure can learn to override instincts and desires.I can choose not to breathe, what’s meditation? The fact that you can see a determinist system and understand what is the causation, should show you obvious as day that you have a will that is free, to think, consequence from choice is a whole other story. Do any other animals get to debate or understand their own instincts? I don’t think so.
It sounds also, like your freedom is to negate.
My desire to understand absolutely began in desire. I want to know. I have curiosity desire. I have desired for certain knowledge because I want.....and you can fill in the blanks. The newboard will seek out it's mother's face out of desire and learns from that face and the voice.Artimas wrote:Yes but a path of understanding doesn’t stem from desire it’s a path of struggle and enduring pain. The pursuit of understanding knowledge defeats the very argument of determinism and our being trapped by desire.
I am not arguing the dog is free, I am saying the dog can override desires which is what you said made us free. And this is not just through imitation. Curiosity, desire, can lead to investigating and noting things and remembering them. I watched my dog learn from one contact with a porcupine to not touch it again. It was a struggle. He really wanted to sniff it again, and he leaned forward, but decided not to. He restrained his desire. This may or may not be free will, but if controlling your desires is freedom, well, he had some freedom.A dog can be taught, this isn’t free will, this doesn’t mean the dog is free. It imitates, it doesn’t understand, there’s a difference.
Knoweldge and experience are not understanding, you say. Could you contrast knowledge and understanding and say where you got this knowledge?To have a freedom of will, one must understand all facets, not merely imitate. The Who, why, what, when, where, how, not just “what or why”. As I had stated, subconscious is not the same as consciousness, knowledge/experience isn’t understanding. The two are separate and the will frees itself through seeking understanding, due to an understanding of knowledge, creating more open possibilities/choices.
Who understands all facets.A dog isn’t going to and cannot at this point in their evolution, understand all of those facets.
Sorry, they learn and this includes learning on their own to control desires. They also learn socially with us and each other and other species.They’re instinctual, bound by instinct and a deterministic system.
I am not arguing dogs are fully conscious, just working with what you are saying freedom comes from.They’re not fully conscious, some humans are subconscious too.
Well, there's another desire.My desire isn’t to live, my desire is to fulfill my purpose.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:My desire to understand absolutely began in desire. I want to know. I have curiosity desire. I have desired for certain knowledge because I want.....and you can fill in the blanks. The newboard will seek out it's mother's face out of desire and learns from that face and the voice.Artimas wrote:Yes but a path of understanding doesn’t stem from desire it’s a path of struggle and enduring pain. The pursuit of understanding knowledge defeats the very argument of determinism and our being trapped by desire.I am not arguing the dog is free, I am saying the dog can override desires which is what you said made us free. And this is not just through imitation. Curiosity, desire, can lead to investigating and noting things and remembering them. I watched my dog learn from one contact with a porcupine to not touch it again. It was a struggle. He really wanted to sniff it again, and he leaned forward, but decided not to. He restrained his desire. This may or may not be free will, but if controlling your desires is freedom, well, he had some freedom.A dog can be taught, this isn’t free will, this doesn’t mean the dog is free. It imitates, it doesn’t understand, there’s a difference.Knoweldge and experience are not understanding, you say. Could you contrast knowledge and understanding and say where you got this knowledge?To have a freedom of will, one must understand all facets, not merely imitate. The Who, why, what, when, where, how, not just “what or why”. As I had stated, subconscious is not the same as consciousness, knowledge/experience isn’t understanding. The two are separate and the will frees itself through seeking understanding, due to an understanding of knowledge, creating more open possibilities/choices.Who understands all facets.A dog isn’t going to and cannot at this point in their evolution, understand all of those facets.Sorry, they learn and this includes learning on their own to control desires. They also learn socially with us and each other and other species.They’re instinctual, bound by instinct and a deterministic system.I am not arguing dogs are fully conscious, just working with what you are saying freedom comes from.They’re not fully conscious, some humans are subconscious too.
They are not just instinct.Well, there's another desire.My desire isn’t to live, my desire is to fulfill my purpose.
Ecmandu wrote:
What is considered the ultimate unfettered freewill
You are the cause of everything including even your own thoughts
surreptitious75 wrote:Ecmandu wrote:
What is considered the ultimate unfettered freewill
You are the cause of everything including even your own thoughts
This cannot be true because your thoughts are not actually unfettered
There are always limitations - psychological - moral - philosophical - logical - social - legal
Therefore absolute free will can be ruled out because you would have to be both omniscient and without morality
Karpel Tunnel wrote:My desire to understand absolutely began in desire. I want to know. I have curiosity desire. I have desired for certain knowledge because I want.....and you can fill in the blanks. The newboard will seek out it's mother's face out of desire and learns from that face and the voice.Artimas wrote:Yes but a path of understanding doesn’t stem from desire it’s a path of struggle and enduring pain. The pursuit of understanding knowledge defeats the very argument of determinism and our being trapped by desire.I am not arguing the dog is free, I am saying the dog can override desires which is what you said made us free. And this is not just through imitation. Curiosity, desire, can lead to investigating and noting things and remembering them. I watched my dog learn from one contact with a porcupine to not touch it again. It was a struggle. He really wanted to sniff it again, and he leaned forward, but decided not to. He restrained his desire. This may or may not be free will, but if controlling your desires is freedom, well, he had some freedom.A dog can be taught, this isn’t free will, this doesn’t mean the dog is free. It imitates, it doesn’t understand, there’s a difference.Knoweldge and experience are not understanding, you say. Could you contrast knowledge and understanding and say where you got this knowledge?To have a freedom of will, one must understand all facets, not merely imitate. The Who, why, what, when, where, how, not just “what or why”. As I had stated, subconscious is not the same as consciousness, knowledge/experience isn’t understanding. The two are separate and the will frees itself through seeking understanding, due to an understanding of knowledge, creating more open possibilities/choices.Who understands all facets.A dog isn’t going to and cannot at this point in their evolution, understand all of those facets.Sorry, they learn and this includes learning on their own to control desires. They also learn socially with us and each other and other species.They’re instinctual, bound by instinct and a deterministic system.I am not arguing dogs are fully conscious, just working with what you are saying freedom comes from.They’re not fully conscious, some humans are subconscious too.
They are not just instinct.Well, there's another desire.My desire isn’t to live, my desire is to fulfill my purpose.
Artimas wrote:I didn’t say they didn’t learn, I said they can’t understand all facets of everything they experience
I don't know what the bolded section means. If you could reword and give an example.maybe not anything they experience in terms of a priori, we can understand all facets, that’s what consciousness is, full consciousness of.
So they are free, but to a lesser degree. Before it seemed like you were saying they were not free and we are.There ya go. I never stated a dog or animals do not have will, they obviously have a will but it is not as free as ours,
But you do desire things. So I don't need to deal with this hypothetical.Well what if I don’t desire anything? What if I don’t care at all if I live or die? Is that too, still based upon desire? Caring?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Artimas wrote:I didn’t say they didn’t learn, I said they can’t understand all facets of everything they experience
I don't think anyone can understand all facets of everything they experience. We have a very narrow awareness of all the things our we are experiencing, there are filters on all senses and even our own coginitive states and their contents are happening rapidly and some outside of consciousness.I don't know what the bolded section means. If you could reword and give an example.maybe not anything they experience in terms of a priori, we can understand all facets, that’s what consciousness is, full consciousness of.So they are free, but to a lesser degree. Before it seemed like you were saying they were not free and we are.There ya go. I never stated a dog or animals do not have will, they obviously have a will but it is not as free as ours,But you do desire things. So I don't need to deal with this hypothetical.Well what if I don’t desire anything? What if I don’t care at all if I live or die? Is that too, still based upon desire? Caring?
So what have you learned lately from a priori?Artimas wrote:Dogs or animals that are still subconscious can’t learn from a priori, they learn through a posteriori, experience.
I didn't say anything about you fearing dying.Who says anything about it being hypothetical?
Just because I /choose/ to value staying alive and not committing suicide doesn’t mean I fear dying,
You seem to be conflating desire with selfishness. You have a desire to help humanity's evolution.it doesn’t mean I don’t place the same value on dying, it doesn’t mean I /have/ to care to live. It simply means I made a /decision/ to care and it isn’t even for my own satisfaction, it’s for humanities evolution really.
Determinists would generally consider instincts one cause amongst many and that nothing is uncaused and everything is inevitable.Determinism is based on instinct and being trapped by instincts, is it not?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:So what have you learned lately from a priori?Artimas wrote:Dogs or animals that are still subconscious can’t learn from a priori, they learn through a posteriori, experience.I didn't say anything about you fearing dying.Who says anything about it being hypothetical?
Just because I /choose/ to value staying alive and not committing suicide doesn’t mean I fear dying,You seem to be conflating desire with selfishness. You have a desire to help humanity's evolution.it doesn’t mean I don’t place the same value on dying, it doesn’t mean I /have/ to care to live. It simply means I made a /decision/ to care and it isn’t even for my own satisfaction, it’s for humanities evolution really.Determinists would generally consider instincts one cause amongst many and that nothing is uncaused and everything is inevitable.Determinism is based on instinct and being trapped by instincts, is it not?
Ecmandu wrote:Prismatic!
Absolute freewill? No, it's self evident that this is untrue ...
I didn't put the proof in the op.
If a being knows every reason why it knows what it knows and ALL of those reasons (absolute), are INTERNAL (freewill) then it won't be able to perceive an other with which to distinguish itself from, this will force non sentience.
I'm a compatibalist.
People use absolute determinism to absolve guilt all the time (I had no choice), freewill rope by definition, do not absolve themselves, you have it backwards.
Spectrum wrote:Btw, the issue of free will is only critical for theists not non-theists. The theists insist humans has free will to commit all their defined evil and sins, and thus absolved God from anything to do with the acts of its subsequent creations.
Artimas wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:Artimas wrote:Thinking is free.
Do you think everything you think of re sex, hunger, to breathe and the rest of the primal impulses are free thoughts by your conscious thinking?
Yes, you can consciously think freely and create a sense of hunger, but instinctual hunger and its related thoughts of the need to eat is not a conscious thinking activity.
No, desire stems from the subconscious and instinct, what is free is my ability to control these desires by severing attachment and by controlling my desires and instinctual behavior I can see more possibilities and have more choices open. I get to control if I do eat or I don’t. The body isn’t free, the mind is. No ones talking about choice and no one is talking about the body, we’re talking about the will. Which is separate from the body, thought is free and not restricted. If it is restricted then what’s knowledge? What’s understanding? What’s the point of facing struggle instead of satisfaction to get to a point of understanding knowledge?
I’ve already defeated the determinism argument based on satisfaction and instincts. Consciousness isn’t the same as the subconscious, its observable in nature. A dog doesn’t understand that chocolate is poison to them and so they eat it, that is a lack of free choice or option, no understanding or thought about it other than their falling for desire and their subconscious being in full control, which is determinism. We aren’t only subconscious, we’re conscious, at least if you choose to be, which yes, it is a free choice to make. Satisfaction and instincts are illusory. Temporary = illusion, pain is all the time, which is reality.
I can control my breathing, I can choose not to breathe, what’s meditation? The fact that you can see a determinist system and understand what is the causation, should show you obvious as day that you have a will that is free, to think, consequence from choice is a whole other story. Do any other animals get to debate or understand their own instincts? I don’t think so.
So what have you learned lately from a priori?Artimas wrote:Dogs or animals that are still subconscious can’t learn from a priori, they learn through a posteriori, experience.
I didn't say anything about you fearing dying.Who says anything about it being hypothetical?
Just because I /choose/ to value staying alive and not committing suicide doesn’t mean I fear dying,
You seem to be conflating desire with selfishness. You have a desire to help humanity's evolution.it doesn’t mean I don’t place the same value on dying, it doesn’t mean I /have/ to care to live. It simply means I made a /decision/ to care and it isn’t even for my own satisfaction, it’s for humanities evolution really.
Determinists would generally consider instincts one cause amongst many and that nothing is uncaused and everything is inevitable.[/quote]Determinism is based on instinct and being trapped by instincts, is it not?
The phrase 'a desire that may not get fulfilled' makes perfect sense and people complain about not getting what they desire and their lack of hope around certain desires all the time.A desire that may not get fulfilled and in knowing this, how can it still be a desire, why would it be?
Desires are not illusory. Perhaps that it will all be as satisifying as one hopes is illusory. Emotions exist, desires exist. You seem to be confusing a discussion of whether desires are good or come with correct beliefs with a discussion of whether they exist. I am not advocating for desires, though I could, but rather I am saying they exist and you have them as motivators.Desire and satisfaction only lead to more pain or fear, desire is illusory, satisfaction is illusory, they do not last, what’s the point of a desire if not satisfaction?
[/quote]There are lots of thing animals will not eat due to instincts. There are lots of things we get the idea to avoid because of non-verbal communication and patterns in parenting and other people's behavior. I haven't asserted you haven't learned anything via a priori - which I actually think is an odd way of phrasing it - but I am curious as to what you base your significantly different conscoiusness from dogs with. We are much more free, according to you, or can be. Fine. YOu say this is because we can learn via a priori. Actually I would say the larger difference is we can learn from experience much more than dogs can. But, here I am just asking you what significant things you learned, like last week, via a priori? If it makes us quite different, then it must happen quite a bit. So I wanted to see examples.What have I learned from a priori? Too many things to count, is philosophy not a priori? Is that not the point of discussion? Are you stating I haven’t learned anything from a priori/deductive logic? I don’t need anyone to tell me not to eat a tide pod or that it would be bad to do such, do you? I do not need to observe or experience such to know I shouldn’t.
What you missed out is this;
There are two aspects of thinking and 'will' that run from different paths;
1. Subconscious and instinctual impulses that trigger thoughts which leads to one thinking about the impulses, e.g. hunger. Example, when your stomach is empty, your system will trigger the hunger system which trigger you in thinking you are hungry. In this case, you cannot think freely because the thought of hunger has already arisen in your conscious thinking mind.
Of course you can think about these thoughts [thinking] subsequently, that is conscious thinking.
2. Conscious thinking.the action of using one's mind to produce thoughts
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thinking
This is where you think of eating. Example when you see someone eating something which trigger you to think consciously of eating and that you also want to eat.
In this case, you can think freely, i.e. in future you can choose not to think of hunger and eating when you see others are eating. This is where impulse control within a person who is fast is doing.
So there are two types of thinking based on the sources of thoughts. You are mixing up this two concepts all the time, thus the confusion.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users