Freewill exists

[Urwrongx1000]

Silhouette,

Feral kids don't jump off cliffs and flies don't dive under water.

They have identities that to them is ultimate truth

^

[barbarianhorde]

Ive read a bunch of pages of this debate and its great.

Almost all aspects are covered.

Except this tiny one, literally tiny:

If all is determined by outside forces, or forces inside that don't essentially belong to the determined thing, how are all these forces even recognizable in the form of a thing, which appears to have an entity?

I believe we arrive either at RM:AO or at VO.

[barbarianhorde]

Because till you show technically and unequivocally where and how pure flux becomes ("the illusion of") entity which then continues to determine its environment through its illusory being, you're not really saying much at all.

[promethean75]

Urwrong, this is what everybody is getting stuck at. Nothing is 'determined' in the way of there being some entity in nature that has a preconceived idea of what will happen before it happens. Nature isn't a 'determiner', but this can't mean that there is no causation.

What were doing is anthropomorphizing nature when we think we can refute causation by attacking the concept of 'determine'... which would be to attribute something to nature that it can't have/do. It's a red herring. Nature doesn't plan or foresee anything... but causation does not need these things to exist.

'Determinism' is just a convenient word to call the position, but technically it confuses the matter.

[barbarianhorde]

"Further conceive, I beg, that an Artimas, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such an Artimas, being conscious merely of its own endeavor and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." - Spinoza

Ah but what of the will, of the human with the right idea of himself? He is not led by the affected states but by his god-like being, his conatus.

[barbarianhorde]

Provisionary statement:


We become free-willed when we attain a proper consciousness regarding the forces that constitute us.


Argument against:

We are still always determined by these exterior forces.

Argument against that:

Impossible to demonstrate, therefore moot.



Commentary:

Things are determined by themselves in so far as their selves are the dominant factor in appropriating forces of the environment.
In so far as they are self-determined, they can not be adequately or accurately defined in terms of their exterior, because the way the exterior interacts with the entity is fundamentally unpredictable.

Anything which is fundamentally unpredictable is logically nondescript, which means it can't philosophically exist.

[barbarianhorde]

Argument against Silhouette:



If discrete identity is an illusion, then to argue on its ground is error. No?

Therefore, whenever you use any pronouns, or confine any concept into a semantic form, you are screwing around and mumbling, metaphysically speaking.

You can't state your thesis without denying it by the very tools you use to state it.

[barbarianhorde]

It seems to me the only way to keep Experientialism pure is by answering everything with either silence, or saying something like "See? Experience!"

Everyones lies and bullshit and ego and ambition as well as their truths and what not are equally valid as experience, all equally indicating experience.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Provisionary statement:


We become free-willed when we attain a proper consciousness regarding the forces that constitute us.


Argument against:

We are still always determined by these exterior forces.

Argument against that:

Impossible to demonstrate, therefore moot.

Nice. Going to moot. Should be done more often. One quibble: it's not just that one would be determined by external forces, it would include internal forces. Unless one is saying that all forces are external to consciousness (which is sort of like an epiphenomenalism claim). If my internal forces are determined by past internal forces and external forces, then my organism goes this way or that way, but it is all predetermined. Few determinists would say that other people and natural forces external to us completely control us. They would just argue that internal and external causes are the same in that they are determined by the moment before.

I think there are problems with claiming one knows determinism is the case, since determinism, if it is the case, makes knowledge claims very questionable. They are compelled. They would seem right. Etc.

I can't do anything about determinism vs. free will. But I can (or I am compelled to) make decisions that increase the range of responses I make and the skills with which I make these choices. There is a difference between a rigid person who has only a few ways of responding and someone who is flexible and skilled - even if free will does not exist. One can also choose to (or be compelled to) decide that one will get out of one's own way. Eliminate guilt, go for things one wants, more towards more freedom. This freedom is not a degree of free will, but a more flexible and fitting to one's desires and needs situation for oneself. Prison, for example, is, for most, very limited. There can be jobs and relationships that are prisons in a metaphorical sense. Learning, skill aquisition, deciding to look at things in oneself and society one might find unpleasant, can lead to greater freedom. Again, with the whole issue of free will vs. determinism black boxed.

[barbarianhorde]

Urwrong, this is what everybody is getting stuck at. Nothing is 'determined' in the way of there being some entity in nature that has a preconceived idea of what will happen before it happens. Nature isn't a 'determiner', but this can't mean that there is no causation.

What were doing is anthropomorphizing nature when we think we can refute causation by attacking the concept of 'determine'... which would be to attribute something to nature that it can't have/do. It's a red herring. Nature doesn't plan or foresee anything... but causation does not need these things to exist.

'Determinism' is just a convenient word to call the position, but technically it confuses the matter.

Yes, determinism is the science of determining causes and effects. It goes a long way, but it isn't by ANY means comprehensive. Its basic buffer is the Standard Model and this is under constant subtle revision.

It doesn't mean that nothing can be identified except as a cause or effect to something else.

[barbarianhorde]

Provisionary statement:


We become free-willed when we attain a proper consciousness regarding the forces that constitute us.


Argument against:

We are still always determined by these exterior forces.

Argument against that:

Impossible to demonstrate, therefore moot.

Nice. Going to moot. Should be done more often. One quibble: it's not just that one would be determined by external forces, it would include internal forces. Unless one is saying that all forces are external to consciousness (which is sort of like an epiphenomenalism claim). If my internal forces are determined by past internal forces and external forces, then my organism goes this way or that way, but it is all predetermined. Few determinists would say that other people and natural forces external to us completely control us. They would just argue that internal and external causes are the same in that they are determined by the moment before.

Yes I did provide for that here:

"If all is determined by outside forces, or forces inside that don't essentially belong to the determined thing, how are all these forces even recognizable in the form of a thing, which appears to have an entity?"

So the Spinozan question here is, when do internal forces become truly part of us?
He argues that it is once we know and understand them.

Until there are forces inside of us that we aren't conscious of, we are being lived (determined) by these forces rather than by our own (Id)entity.

So our Identity is something we grow into, qua, basically, wisdom.

And as wee grow into our (id)entity, we become free. That is to say: we can't be defined (predicted) any longer except in terms of what is clearly in our own self interest (our power to continue to be).

Its all pretty simple really when it comes down to the quality of life standard that is the real issue here.
But theoretically-semantically it gets really convoluted.
But almost everyone really knows that to be free means to know oneself means to have power, and that its fucking hard to attain a complete state of that.

I think there are problems with claiming one knows determinism is the case, since determinism, if it is the case, makes knowledge claims very questionable. They are compelled. They would seem right. Etc.

Yes it is like robbing someone of their sword at gunpoint and then saying: see? there are no weapons.

Or something like that.

I can't do anything about determinism vs. free will. But I can (or I am compelled to) make decisions that increase the range of responses I make and the skills with which I make these choices.

This is what Spinoza would call the process of becoming oneself. Meaning, becoming self-determining.
And what is self-determining if not "free"?

Free to oneself, of course.
Not: free from oneself.

These are two different kinds of freedom altogether which are haphazardly conflated throughout any free will discussion.

There is a difference between a rigid person who has only a few ways of responding and someone who is flexible and skilled - even if free will does not exist. One can also choose to (or be compelled to) decide that one will get out of one's own way. Eliminate guilt, go for things one wants, more towards more freedom. This freedom is not a degree of free will, but a more flexible and fitting to one's desires and needs situation for oneself. Prison, for example, is, for most, very limited. There can be jobs and relationships that are prisons in a metaphorical sense. Learning, skill aquisition, deciding to look at things in oneself and society one might find unpleasant, can lead to greater freedom. Again, with the whole issue of free will vs. determinism black boxed.

And it all ultimately resolves only in the question: where the hell did being come from anyway?
Obviously the Big Bang is simply a projection of the dilemma. Everything came out of nothing because the laws of nature didn't apply in nothing. Yeah.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Free to oneself, of course.
Not: free from oneself.

It's a bit of a tangent but this part caught my eye most. It is amazing how many 'paths' try to get one free from oneself. Buddhism with its disidentification, modern psychiatric/pharmaceutical approaches to the so called negative emotions, new age approaches, and even both the Left and the Right have political correctnesses about what one should feel, desire, not feel, not desire, express, not express...and so on. All this training to be one's own jailer or to exile parts of oneself or to suppress, deny, feel ashamed of as a rule, feel guilty about.

[barbarianhorde]

"That's a very determined quark!"

Negus.

"That's a very determined law of physics!"

See where I'm going?

This is also what I believe Faust meant in his excelent list. Science is a matter of consensus.

Also why the yell of euphoria. "Eureka!"

It is a joy. Not a, how you say, a subjugation. Like "oh, I have discovered my master." Not at all.

Science is something you get away with. That's Elon's Achiles's Heel. He was educated into the subservience class. So he fears his science.

Two perspectives
From outside of science:
The science is the consensus based on the scientist.

From inside the scientist:
The science is the fact that I (the scientist) is a badass.

In both cases, the science is the attribute of the scientist, not the other way around: hence the eureka joy. "This world is mine for all eternity."

[barbarianhorde]

Free to oneself, of course.
Not: free from oneself.

It's a bit of a tangent but this part caught my eye most. It is amazing how many 'paths' try to get one free from oneself. Buddhism with its disidentification, modern psychiatric/pharmaceutical approaches to the so called negative emotions, new age approaches, and even both the Left and the Right have political correctnesses about what one should feel, desire, not feel, not desire, express, not express...and so on. All this training to be one's own jailer or to exile parts of oneself or to suppress, deny, feel ashamed of as a rule, feel guilty about.

Tell me a fuckingbout it.

And in the other direction stands: free to oneself.

Own the pain, first all. And the guilt and the shame and all the fucking sludge in the organs that can't be transmuted into blissful truths.

But even then, this only makes sense if there is some form of metaphysics, some ethics, some Idea, into which all the sludge has a home.

This Idea is found in certain pagan gods, to get it all the way off topic in tangent - and I believe this might be the very necessity of religion to exist - to give a home to the dirt. Otherwise the dirt is the home, and thats just shitty, and unhealthy. Even though it may be the final truth, it isn't the highest truth.

[barbarianhorde]

Therapy... what a topic.

I went into therapy three times.

The first time, I turned extremely depressed. The guy was sitting there listening to my crazy stories about death and sex admitting that he found it all way too compelling. I had to get a lift from him back to my city then at night, feeling more soulless each time.

The next therapist some years later prescribed an antipsychotic to me off the bat, just from hearing me say I smoke weed and probably the look on my face and my jagged sentences.

I got the drug, looked on the little sheet of paper that comes with it at the side effects, one of which actually was "death".
I kept them in a drawer as a potential weapon for some years, but never took one. As an act of vengeance I quickly got myself a job, house, car and girlfriend. All within one month of telling that shrink he was a murderous fascist.

The third therapist, (still about free will, discovering it) was actually good. He said I should just get the fuck out there and be awesome. Thats what I did.

[barbarianhorde]

See for example.

All of the other posters took the approach of "it is so therefore I say it". Thats not free will.

Free will is what Im doing. Show you how it all ties up into precisely me, what I say, my personal brilliance, my way of tying things together -

this requires power, a degree of self knowledge that allows separation from all theory, all pre existing models.

Thats what it is, free will. To be free of all pre-existing models in the most fundamental motivation.

There can't be any nonsense left in the mind to attain this autonomy. All thought needs to add up. So this is why I said before what I said to Artimas, that free will follows from discipline. It cant be given, it must be taken. And yeah that taking is determined by other forces - but also by the possibility of free will. That is, nothing stands in its way.

It isn't determined that there cant be freedom. Therefore there is, eventually, most likely to be freedom.
The same with Being. It isn't determined there must be nothing. Because nothing has no determining power.

[barbarianhorde]

Set your criteria first, what you out there to find?

Not demonstrably reducible, or demonstrably irreducible?

[barbarianhorde]

The world is apparently free to exist.

Does it want to exist?

Question of health.

So free will is also a question of health.

[barbarianhorde]

So really, the human question (bringing It to Earf) is: are you free to will, or are you wanting freedom?


in the first case, one is only free to will more of oneself. More of this freedom. Thats what is called self-valuing. Valuing in terms of ones own freedom. One is never tied to this except by loving it more than unfreedom.


So, in the final answer, will is bound by love. Love determines the highest determinators. And love is a rebellious bird.

[Karpel Tunnel]

This Idea is found in certain pagan gods, to get it all the way off topic in tangent - and I believe this might be the very necessity of religion to exist - to give a home to the dirt. Otherwise the dirt is the home, and thats just shitty, and unhealthy. Even though it may be the final truth, it isn't the highest truth.

There is a general assumption, often also by atheists, that it was an advance to go from paganism/shamanism/animism/pantheism to the monotheisms. I think this was a serious backstep. There are portions of the NT that I think are useful, though a lot of stuff that is not, but the replacement of those more complicated and human religions with the monotheisms has been a disaster.

[Artimas]

This Idea is found in certain pagan gods, to get it all the way off topic in tangent - and I believe this might be the very necessity of religion to exist - to give a home to the dirt. Otherwise the dirt is the home, and thats just shitty, and unhealthy. Even though it may be the final truth, it isn't the highest truth.

There is a general assumption, often also by atheists, that it was an advance to go from paganism/shamanism/animism/pantheism to the monotheisms. I think this was a serious backstep. There are portions of the NT that I think are useful, though a lot of stuff that is not, but the replacement of those more complicated and human religions with the monotheisms has been a disaster.

most don’t understand it, it’s like watching a 3D movie, you won’t see the 3D aspect without the right glasses, this is similar with the monotheistic religions such as the holy bible, Hebrew, etc. A ton of it is metaphor for mankind’s own psyche, they gave a story of their obeying and following their instincts by being conscious of them. Let me try and find some examples.

Psalm 32:7
God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.

Wisdom is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.

Psalm 46:1
Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.

Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them(ignorant), for the subconscious, your wisdom and instinct goes with you; it will never leave you nor forsake you.

It is said as “he” because he individuals writing the stories were he and so it was automatic assumption based from their own identity/consciousness communicating with their subconscious.

~ Deuteronomy 31:6
You make your saving help my shield, and your right hand sustains me; your help has made me great. You provide a broad path for my feet, so that my ankles do not give way.

You make your saving help my shield(wisdom/light), and your right hand sustains me; your help has made me great. You provide such a broad path for my feet, so that my ankles do not give way.
(Work harder not smarter, opportunities from wisdom to make work and treading paths easier.) right hand if facing toward the north is representative of the sun, which is light and cause of life/wisdom and consciousness.

Psalm 18:35-36
“No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the Lord.

No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you(truth/wisdom). This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and this is their vindication of me. (light/truth/wisdom/self)

Forgiveness of self is the savior of guilt/judgement.

It’s all internal.

I can do more, if you have specifics you want me to look at or try to translate, I will.

It was an advance kind of and that’s why it has been misunderstood or mistranslated as literal when it isn’t.

Paganism was the worship of many gods, not a one god, those many gods are images of the archetypes of mankind’s psyche. Imagery that is portrayed to the mind that one is humble to. Monotheism is the realization that all of those archetypes are actually a one god (truth) appearing in different forms to different individuals, diverse perception = diverse imagery portrayed to the individuals. We have been fighting a thousand + years over the same thing, just the confusion of the image being literal. Fighting over the messenger instead of taking the message.

It’s like fighting over an apple being red or a one type existing as true, while it still tastes the same and offers the same information to everyone, that it was embedded with by it being an apple. Does the image of the apple matter, if it tastes the same or the information is the same to both people? So then why are they fighting? The same can be said of /truth/ and /light/. We all see it but sometimes fail miserable in translating it to each other, which causes the fighting. Or if another individual is lacking the experience or imagery, then they can’t possibly understand what you are trying to explain, like describing psychedelics to someone who has never tried them.

[Artimas]

See for example.

All of the other posters took the approach of "it is so therefore I say it". Thats not free will.

Free will is what Im doing. Show you how it all ties up into precisely me, what I say, my personal brilliance, my way of tying things together -

this requires power, a degree of self knowledge that allows separation from all theory, all pre existing models.

Thats what it is, free will. To be free of all pre-existing models in the most fundamental motivation.

There can't be any nonsense left in the mind to attain this autonomy. All thought needs to add up. So this is why I said before what I said to Artimas, that free will follows from discipline. It cant be given, it must be taken. And yeah that taking is determined by other forces - but also by the possibility of free will. That is, nothing stands in its way.

It isn't determined that there cant be freedom. Therefore there is, eventually, most likely to be freedom.
The same with Being. It isn't determined there must be nothing. Because nothing has no determining power.

Yes, the words appear determined, because they are, as is my right and freedom in determining to say them. But being, is free to oneself, like you stated. Expression is the only thing we truly have. When the words are inside my being, I have the freedom of determining which path I want to tread with those words, the how, why, when, what, who, where.

Freedom is built off of pain just like slavery. Both are sides to the same coin of pain. One optimistic(responsible/take action) and one pessimistic(victim/fear). Pain, consistency and following through, is discipline. Wisdom/discipline won’t let you have it without the power of handling it responsibly. It won’t set one up for failure in its pursuit. Have to make the pain worth it instead of let it eat you because pain is inevitable and infinite.

“I am the hurricane that destroys all in its path, and the spring that grants life, simultaneously.” Being nature, conscious of itself, is powerful.

[Ecmandu]

Ive read a bunch of pages of this debate and its great.

Almost all aspects are covered.

Except this tiny one, literally tiny:

If all is determined by outside forces, or forces inside that don't essentially belong to the determined thing, how are all these forces even recognizable in the form of a thing, which appears to have an entity?

I believe we arrive either at RM:AO or at VO.

This is basically what my OP is, reworded. My op states that sentience cannot occur at the polar extremes of either absolute determinism or absolute freewill, which I stated, leaves a remainder on both sides, some freewill and some determinism: compatibalism

[Artimas]

Ive read a bunch of pages of this debate and its great.

Almost all aspects are covered.

Except this tiny one, literally tiny:

If all is determined by outside forces, or forces inside that don't essentially belong to the determined thing, how are all these forces even recognizable in the form of a thing, which appears to have an entity?

I believe we arrive either at RM:AO or at VO.

This is basically what my OP is, reworded. My op states that sentience cannot occur at the polar extremes of either absolute determinism or absolute freewill, which I stated, leaves a remainder on both sides, some freewill and some determinism: compatibalism

Then are we all in agreement, or?

[barbarianhorde]

Seems like we re not dumb enough to keep disagreeing in perpetuity on matters which are of some real interest.
On top of that though there is the rank order of free will as a result of a honing process. Since free will comes about, rather than that it is present from the outset, free will is literally and in both ways the end of determination. Determination (not determinism) leads in the end to a state which can only further determine itself.
Much like parents can feed and kick around a Childe until it becomes powerful enough and rational enough to make its path for itself. As an analogy.