the will is free

Excuse me… but lordo flight… why do you assume that because a future can’t be predicted, it necessarily follows that antecedent conditions prior to that future did not cause that future to happen in the way that it did?

I’ll tell you why this freewill/determinism debate is such a bitch for philosophers. It’s because the conclusion of causality must be inferred. It’s not something that comes from experience or observation, so it’s not empirical knowledge. You can’t get there either deductively or inductively. Causality belongs to the rationalists, not the empiricists. You have to intuit it based from a line of reasoning which shows how indeterminism is infintely more ridiculous… so you HAVE to conclude with causality. And when you accept causality… you gotta go the full distance. None of this ‘well there’s a little freewill here because chaos and randomness whatever whatever.’

None of that detracts from the fact that causally sufficient antecedent conditions exist for everything and anything that happens in the universe. Doesn’t matter if no order is perceived, or no predictions can be certain, or it’s logically possible for you imagine yourself turning left rather than right. These things don’t change the fact of causality.

and maybe this should be clarified again for those who like to get into these freewill/determinism debates… because it’s a subtle detail that can be easily overlooked.

the doctrine of freewill is a version of determinism, since it asserts that there is something causing one’s actions. namely, the person, who exercises an ‘agent causality’ when they ‘choose’ to act.

so here the determining force is switched from the natural laws to the person… who can do to his body (through that connection with the material that descartes never explained) what the natural laws do to all the other things in the universe.

so really the freewillist is putting forth an even stranger thesis than hard determinism; he’s saying that there are two different kinds of causality operating in nature. one is the laws of physics and chemistry, and the other is the law of moi. and any time my body moves voluntarily, it doesn’t result from the influence of the laws of physics and chemistry, but from the influence of causal agent moi. the moi acts on the body like the laws of physics and chemistry act on a tree, or a microwave, or an earthquake, or a solar flare, or a car wash, or a camel cricket.

it’s like everything in the brain is moving right along according to these natural laws and then… suddenly… the whole thing seizes its gears and stops. why? because moi is thinking about ordering a number five with a sprite rather than the two piece dinner. a force field spontaneously generates around moi as he stands at the menu board, completely insulating his body from the natural laws. the very existence of space/time halts… waiting for the agent causation to pick up where the natural laws stopped, and put moi’s lips in motion when he utters the words ‘you know what, lemme just get an order of chicken tenders and a vanilla milkshake.’

The only way out is in. One must travel the tube before getting out if there is an out. That’s the point of evolution and life, the point of being diverse… to manifest and explore everything from a point of nothing. If I can get out of my own mental traps via logic and reason (micro) then why can’t we believe or entertain the idea of a getting out in macro form or collectively.

existence is based off of a duality, if there is an in there has to be an out, that’s duality. There is always a balance, it’s how nature functions.

What we see as an eternity may not be an actual eternity to anything macro. It only seems such to us because we are the micro to a macro while we may observe a micro to our being macro.

We… are the most advanced computer system so far as we know and we have yet to determine or find our limits as we continue to evolve. The out is the very infinity of possibilities to explore. Most stay trapped in their limited thinking and so they do not see an infinite of possibility. To see such one must examine from nothing.

The ‘in’ is always’ OUT’ In fact it’s way out. Way out where galactic black holes are vampirically are after more and more stuff to suck in.

Most are holdouts as to the danger.of This fear, for it is nothing but a fear It’s self. When that transpires or configures , it becomes just another illusive delusion.

It’s basis in the nothingness of it’s form, is but a needless preoccupation with transcending it’s self.

It is scary but worth it in the end. Wisdom and reality are crazy. Indeed, it transcends on multiple levels simultaneously.

I just feel we live in both. A deterministic reality of which the will is free ultimately but to become free of traps, one has to sacrifice, an understanding must be earned through not satisfaction but instead much struggle and humility/just obligation, the satisfaction at the end is not even guaranteed. It’s between an understanding and suffering/death, the reward if one gets such is a possible satisfaction and more available possibilities/choices, but it’s possible to not be satisfied with the results as well, like Einstein with the Atom bomb.

The only reason we know of such comforts now is due to the many who have died and suffered to bring us here… comfort is built off of suffering, thus it is not satisfactory in itself, you can feel pain to grow, or you can feel pain to rot and die in traps. Choose, wisely, thus, desire is an illusion. The one who appreciates what he has is often more happy than the one who always wants.

The very satisfaction is built off of pain and only an illusion due to fears of the unknown and wanting comfort due to such.

If everything works determinist, how are we separate from mass society? Are you saying they too do not have a choice or option to pickup a book and educate themselves as we did? The will can only become, more free through struggle and in having available so much responsibility at once one believes they are limited. When they are the universe of everything and nothing simultaneously experiencing and expanding itself while being aware of such.

If we aren’t separate from the rest in general public then why so much hate towards us whom think and the rejection of knowledge or criticism? Fear of unknown, some satisfaction that is. What you don’t know, may kill you.

It isn’t satisfactory or dissatisfactory. it is what it is, and it is what you make it. Desire is blinding.

If you let go of desire, you let go of fear, for what is there to fear if no loss? if you let go of fear, you let go of desire. For what comfort is there to strive for if nothing to fear?

see the loops, the trap?

Kind of off topic but is also a bit relevant. I wonder if Socrates saying he is wise for he knows that he knows nothing is a reference to the nothing of which also is everything, the humility it grants and is required in understanding is the claim of ‘being’ nothing, when one knows nothing, they also gaze into everything.

Or maybe determinism is based off of a fear of responsibility and one being in control of self and all that isn’t and all that is, within universal law, due to a wanting to stay comfortable and not tread any further unknown.

All this debate is is a two sided coin being argued about which side is the only side. It’s a matter of your perspective. Both desire and fear can be killed or given power. Except, desire doesn’t come before fear… so then what now do you think determinism is? Is it Still about Satisfaction? When both sides of desire are fear and pain?

From samsara to nirvana… I say no more. =;

What is love? Oh baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.

for a great deal of philosophy, various defense mechanisms can be subconsciously enacted (e.g., rationalization) to bring us to beliefs that are most agreeable to us, but i wouldn’t classify the philosophy of determinism as an example. i mean one doesn’t believe in determinism because it ‘feels good’ or not. in the same way, one wouldn’t believe that 1+1=2 or that atlanta is the capital of gorgia because they ‘liked’ these truths… and neither would one deny them if they didn’t find these truths agreeable. granted, determinism is not a strictly empirical philosophy, but its line of reasoning follows logically from various deductive truths upon which it is based and found. if and when one is able to follow these lines of reasoning, the conclusion is not something you can ‘argue away’ because you find it disagreeable.

fortunately, most who believe in freewill aren’t lying or playing tricks. they actually believe it is real, so we wouldn’t charge them with a philosophical crime.

but what happens is, because most simply can’t grasp the truth of determinism, they naturally suspect ulterior motives in the philosopher who endorses it… and they do this because they can’t understand a belief in it for any other reason than for the purposes of deceiving themselves and/or others. it’s analogous to one child calling another child evil because he doesn’t believe in santa claus (or santa’s clause). to the child who believes in santa, saying santa doesn’t exist is simply preposterous and unheard of.

but no… think about what you’re saying (we’ll grant your point for a moment). do you think someone who really believed in freewill could lie to themselves and pretend to believe in determinism instead because they weren’t comfortable with the truth of freewill?

if i wasn’t happy with the fact that i can’t fly, could i decide to no longer believe in gravity?

also, determinism doesn’t denote a ‘fear of responsibility and being in control of self’. instead, it changes how we conceive of the ‘self’ and the concept of ‘responsibility’ and ‘control’. ironically, it rather greatly expands the capacity of the self as well as the identity; instead of you being an isolated acausal agency, you are an expression of a much bigger matrix (or ecology) of causes and effects that speak for a wider range of forces than a meager personal ‘choice’. think of yourself not as a person, but an entire environment that interacts with countless causes and effects. that old notion of the private cartesian self ‘inside the head’ is dead, and your control extends much further than what you have the capacity to do with yourself. think of it like this; artimas is nature controlling itself through the proxy of a ‘you’.

and because of that tremendous power, you are far more ‘responsible’ than you’d ever be if you only had freewill.

you like that irony, didn’t ya? i’m pretty fuckin’ tight with the ironies, man. got a whole library of em in my head.

I know both exist, it’s just a matter of perspective and words. How can we say what isn’t possible based from a level or step of ignorance of a future understanding? Determinism is a lack of control of future/present due to past or present (environment).

Understanding is a staircase of infinity, you can only see so much unless you -choose- to take steps, which more of will is revealed as you go. Determinism sounds like slavery to/of the mind to the system to me.

Nature is controlling me by the proxy of a me? Isn’t that what the subconscious was? Instinct without a viewing of it? So can you not control your instincts? The proxy is my body and subconscious I agree but consciousness grants us a stronger ability. We have many things we have yet to do and many things we should be doing to improve our understandings of multiple facets of and in reality, this continuous eternal conquest of seeking understanding through knowledge is what reveals the will to itself, consciously… the more of which one travels the staircase to reach more complex understandings the more dangerous its traps of the mind.

I agree nature is all powerful though and it’s system but free will is conscious of which one does consent to reality by choice and it is far more complex than our being compelled of/by the attribution of value/desire or satisfaction being deemed more important than an understanding through and of struggle which leads to satisfaction only to repeat and do such again to reveal more of will. Both are temporary, what is not temporary is what we derive our of will and understanding, what we may create and push into objective existence, such is proven everyday by people who go through or have went through tremendous struggles who are now winning in life and with an understanding of reality especially.

But who’s truths are they? I can imagine many many if not an infinity of things possible of which I could choose and specifically manifest, if I sought the understanding that specific topic or manifestation of which we as a species could bring into existence, what’s limited about that?

The reason that the question of free will has never been answerd satisfactorily is not that it is a difficult question. It’s that it’s the wrong question.

Just what is the will supposed to be free from, if it’s free?

Instinct or subconscious, a no understanding of the eternal sequence of reactions creating possibilities and possibilities creating reactions. Free from nothing with the choice of also being nothing once more.

Oh. Usually it’s God, the laws of nature or causation.

The laws of nature contain an infinity even within their existence, that’s why we’re free. Knowledge comes and continues going. Our seeking to understand such is the very act of freedom, the choice to tread eternally and not be halted.

We are apart of and advocates for the very act of freedom. Of being a valued possibility within what could be nothing.

philosophynow.org/issues/49/Kan … Connection

If you get a chance, take a couple bing hits and read this, artimas. It’s a good primer and will help you understand what’s going on here. I think you’re ready to see how the big dogs handle this matter.

…the will is free when we don’t live up to others’ expectations of us, from the nature/nurture aspect of all things, and ignoring sociotel cues on when and how we should speak, walk, act, procreate, and even think, by the coercive means of others.

Thanks for that article, I will write something up to try and describe how, why, what, etc of this matter. I believe there is another answer or step to understanding it, in other words I believe I may have an idea that shows what’s going on and why/how.

Is this anything good or verifiable or new? My take in this present moment of how it all functions of which there will be more to add and be expounded upon, of that I have no doubt.

A priori knowledge is at an infinite amount of which is biologically integrated into the dna and of which builds the psyche, the present a posteriori( also contributes through present/current environment and experience of which builds or shapes the ego/provokes instinct. A priori exists integrated into psyche by and through the unconscious and subconscious of which was built of that same infinite a posteriori in one and all ancestries past(s) before one is conscious or has an ability to understand and express such consciousness/understanding upon the world.

In simpler terms or through an attempted expression/example: An existential crisis is what it is, due to an individual being an infinite amount of possibilities of both past and future confined to and in a present moment of which causes the individual to lose track or gain track of who they are as self and their suppressed being, dependent upon their attribution of value to future or past through fear/blame or acceptance/gain.

The subconscious has no differentiation between time and so it is built off of an infinity of both past and future possibilities to the conscious (understanding) mind which presents the illusion of being confined to past, present or future but in reality the individual is all three due to their psyche not being able to differentiate and being built from an infinity of objective unconscious/subconscious experiences, a sought possibility of which may seem imaginative is a possibility of which the steps do not appear due to the illusion of value attribution/satisfaction. When one understands they are the infinity of both past, present and future the will becomes free from this causal reaction of the past.

‘A man must become nothing, to become something’

In this becoming nothing one may glimpse everything.

To be or understand nothing is to see and be everything for possibilities even if seeming like imaginative impossibilities, are ladders to be climbed. What seems like imagination is due to the staircase of understanding and it’s steps being longer than what one may see or that one may value less stressful/more satisfactory in their present moment, so a very higher up understanding/step and having to be stressfully climbed possibility seems like an impossibility at the sacrifice of value for the future for value in the present.

The illusion of satisfaction/value attribution which is from a lesser point of understanding.

Being controlled by past to casually enjoy fruits of the present:

“Less work in the present moment for more value in the present but for less value in the future”

Being controlled by the future, for one may deem that the present lacks fruits/value from the past:

“More work in the present at the cost of struggle and acceptance of pain, for more value in the future”.

The mind is conditioned by a posteriori until one understands the implications and intricacies of their own consciousness and makes a choice and sacrifice to pursue being fully conscious through a priori.

Some examples that there is a non differentiation between time of, in and through the subconscious aspects of reality could be shown as instinct, intuition(future), dreams(past or future), guilt(past), etc.

The Will is never free WHEN WE GIVE TASKS A HALF HEARTED EFFORT, but the Will is always free WHEN WE FULFILL OUR TRUE POTENTIAL.

The devil can calculate for every mistake that we ever make, throwing us into a deeper trap when we fail to gleam the sunlight of true liberation. But to be Strong, to rage past the sea of chaos, tame and focus all of the stratifications being thrown our way, then we evolve, become more mightier, and absolutely indomitable to command the precipice.

There’s a glowing stream, a majestic torrent above our lines to the divine, and if we reach into this pool of all promise, then we’re showered with an all emblazoning radiance that even the devil can’t conquer, and God sets into golden highlights for us THE BEST WAY IMAGINABLE!!1

I’d like to know if this idea I wrote has already been proven in psychology or someone has written on it, I just would like to know if I should write a paper or book off of it to submit somewhere…