Freewill exists

You feel like you aren’t, just like everyone. When you test it or think it through, however, nope - you are.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it” - absolutely. But this has nothing to do with Free Will: the education determines that you are able and going to entertain a thought without accepting it.

This is the normal conclusion of somebody who, ironically, isn’t psychologically “free” enough (willing) to let go of the idea that it’s their “identity” that is in complete control. Of course it’s true that some people are indoctrinated, or unable/unwilling to think/act beyond certain boundaries, and there’s a difference between these people and those who are colloquially termed “free thinkers”. But free thought is just as much determined as indoctrinated or fearful thought, just in different ways.

It’s been extraordinarily difficult to get some people to understand and accept this in my experience, because it’s an emotional attachment and not a rational choice to cling to Free Will. It’s a mental reflex to immediately assume that the person arguing against Free Will is indoctrinated, not a “free thinker” etc. - even if they think they are. “You” know you’re a free thinker, so it must be they who are at fault, right?

I can only say that the last challenge of the “free thinker”, after all free thought is explored, is to be free from the idea that they were ever a free thinker at all.

So you’re saying I follow others ideas without my knowing? What if I told you, I originate my own ideas? you miss the entire meaning of that quote, attachment is what creates a binding of the will, it’s psychologically proven, addicts. So an addict is not less or more free than you given their current predicament of failing to cope normally and not being able to understand themself due to a weak will to desire and value attribution.

Yes, education shows you the possibilities if you make the choice in pursuing it. It is a determined choice that may free the will.

You have a choice, be a slave to others ideas or to be a slave to your own ideas. Which one do you think is more or less valuable to you and why is it valuable? Freedom comes from proper value attribution of ones will. Ignorance being abolished with education. It’s quite literally, a determined choice that grants more will and usually when something becomes /less/ confined, it’s more /freeing/.

At the roots determinism plays a role. But when a will may be expanded by a conscious choice to become less confined how is that not a decision to grant a more free will? Because it was worked for? You reap what you sow and you sow whatever it is you choose to value.

Things have control over people because people place value over things. I’d say there are levels of will like there are levels of consciousness, one is higher than the other, so is this more or less, silhouette? Ones choice is what determines ones will, one can choose to be bound or one can continue to unbind oneself but never being unbound completely until dead.

I wonder why people place /value/ on money, hmmm… maybe because having it is /more/ freeing.

I never stated the identity wasn’t in control, but I may choose my identity based on choosing my environment and letting go of the past, so is that not my choosing to to be my own person, free of others? What is creating ones own environment then?

I do believe in cause and effect and I do subscribe to fate, I do however subscribe to the idea that we may choose our fate. Which is the aspect to our will of which is free.

Overall I think there are layers of determinism and layers of free will within that system. Loopholes if you will.

Besides delving into a Zeno here…

I actually missed that you were asking me to explicitly define internal and external.

My answer is the limit stuff again.

We know for a fact that 100% external is impossible.

So… internal is the remainder.

That simple.

Then we got into a little scrape about whether that remainder was internal or chaos.

I responded that if it was chaos, it wouldn’t be able to hold a stable identity (which is self evident in a very large range - even people with dissociative identity disorder have a stable identity.)

So, I stated that the remainder has to be less than determinism but more than chaos (absolute creationism.

It’s this sweet spot, which is identity, the internal.

It’s a process of elimination here.

Well it was only the 3rd time I asked, so that’s a little worrying when it comes to how much of what I’m saying that you’re reading/retaining.

And this worry is only compounded by your response to my question:

Fine, so internal is “not external” - complex stuff here - but in “answering” half the question, you’ve still not shed any light on the definition of “external” from which to define “internal” as “not that”… - thereby not answering anything at all.

Please do excuse my frustration, but if you could read and try to understand what I’m asking, I would be very grateful.

And the examples I gave of Jupiter’s “red spot” and the Lorenz attractor are examples of a stable identity emerging from chaos…
And the whole point is that identity itself isn’t a stable concept even for people without dissociative identity disorder et al.

Again some things you seem to have either not read, not understood, or not remembered…

If I’m the only one making an effort here then please let me know. Honestly speaking this is why I tend to avoid engaging with you, because the kind of consistent lack of clarity and progress that I tend to get from you is a waste of my time.

And here comes the exact defensive presumptions that I predicted… such a shame.

I know exactly what you’re saying when you say you originate your own ideas, and what you think you mean applies the same to me. But it’s not “free” thought in the sense that it bypasses Determinism, it’s just “free” in that your own effort and inspiration go into it, and any simple repetition is absent. The work and inspiration themselves, however, were determined to occur - so as free as we may be from being told what to think, it’s still not “us” and our wills that are free from everything else.
I’m inviting you to entertain a line of thinking here, you don’t have to oblige me - in that you are “free” in the way you mean it, but whichever way you choose will have been determined by something - even if not directly by other people’s words and actions. This is what closes all these loopholes that you think you see.

I’ve not missed the entire meaning of the quote, and I’m suggesting, as politely as I can that it may be yourself who is “attacted”… just trust me when I say I already understand everything else you argue in this post - you probably aren’t familiar with me as a poster so you probably have little reason to trust me, but it’s true that I already understand your argument.

Sillouette,

I think your asking me to define internal and external have not been overt, but implied in the last three posts, except for the last one, which was very specific.

So I just kept telling you that 100% internal is impossible and 100% external is impossible.

Like I said, I defined them as absolute “knowing every reason that you know what you know” and if all of those reasons are external, that, that’s the LIMIT of determinism, and likewise, if ALL of those reasons are internal !! Then you have absolute chaos, otherwise known as absolute freewill or absolute creationism.

Let’s please not talk over each other, as I think we have both been answering each other’s posts and responding to them appropriately.

You’re using the term chaos incorrectly. Chaos is so chaotic that it’s undefined, if you can define it, than by definition, it can’t be chaos. What you’re referring to, as I mentioned earlier, is complexity.

So here we are. Let’s see where this goes.

The mind and it’s many inter-relating sections are interesting, I’d say the sweet spot you refer to is the deep down self that one wants to portray the identity as, it’s the most freedom an individual can have, is themself. The going inside to project an outside based off of an understanding of this inside.

The loophole isn’t closed, we’re still in and going through it. That’s the thing you don’t see that I am trying to explain. We have yet to go extinct and we have much more to understand. The pursuit of an understanding of self and how things are and what is possible.

What am I attached to? The idea of responsibility instead of everything being out of my control? Some things are out of our control, there is no doubt. But not all things, if there is a trace of any aspect to and of will being free, then that is what should be focused upon and given thought. If you stop at an idea then there is no will that remains free, so it is our determined choice of the pursuit of understanding of which keeps the loop open because there is always more to be understood. Some loops close for more to be opened, that is evolution I’d say.

I’m listening. Your last post didn’t explain how the loophole isn’t closed, and you don’t seem to have expanded beyond that here…
“There could be some future thing we understand that illustrates your stance” isn’t an argument. It’s not false, but it does nothing to counter the unsurmountable wall of reason and evidence already against Free Will.

Are you suggesting that certainty in Determinism, in itself opens up Free Will? That would be an interesting argument, but it needs fleshing out to be persuasive.

Yes, you are attached to the idea of responsibility. I don’t see any trace of any aspect to and of will being free… keeping an open mind is good and all with regard to inductive reasoning, but not when the answers are there: as soon as you have deductive disproofs, then no amount of future evidence is potentially going to prove it at some possible point in time.

My primary argument is that if there is a reason for a decision then there is will, but it is not free from that reason, and if there is no reason for a decision then there is no will, no matter how free from determinacy a reasonless choice may be.
This and other arguments I have can be found on this other thread.

Clearly you didn’t check…

Not overt at all… ](*,)

ANYWAY, moving on…

A reiteration of your argument, not a definition of external (or internal).

“If all reasons are external then limit of Determinism”: sure, but WHAT IS “EXTERNAL”?! Define it.
“If all reasons are internal then absolute chaos/Free will/absolute Creationism”, exactly what I’ve argued against and had no indication that you’ve even acknowledged…

It’s truly saddening that you think this.

No. I am not referring to complexity.
I’m not defining chaos, I’m defining Determinism and not-that is called indeterminacy. I’m not going into what’s ordered about indeterminacy/chaos.

This is a waste of time, I’ll give you one more try.

Sillouette,

In using LIMITS!!! I’m defining freewill BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION!!!

I’m fulfilling your requests.

That may be what I am trying to explain.

If you know the rules of the game, then you may cheat the rules to make the game how you want it, it is a matter of understanding the correct things in sequence and to stay on top of the changes/time, a continuity of this pursuing an understanding all facets.

The reason the loop is open and stays open is because there is always more to understand, the impossibilities are endless for our species if in a collective state of understanding. We may go extinct eventually to either spawn a newer and stronger species of humans, which happens with however many generations or so or possibly create hostile Ai or we may devolve and kill ourselves off by our avoidance of responsibility of ourselves in all facets(the avoidance of understanding). I want you to think about the world as a whole silhouette and tell which one of these inevitable ends you see that we may be going down and why the urgency in us all may be present deep down. The counter doesn’t appear for the argument because there is no counter other than ignorance, understanding and experimentation is on a spectrum of infinity my friend but the backwards side is ignorance or a staying confined.

The will is never free from reason, but if you consciously control the reason of the will, how can the will not be free? Do you see what I am saying? You can observe the future possibilities by the use of logic/reason with this kind of power. Which people do, like the Simpsons creators and others, I whole heartedly believe humanities future will be somewhat like Futurama maybe a little less exaggerated in some aspects, call me crazy if you want. Possibilities however may not always be exact, due to a different choice or disruption in the path collectively “one person can make a difference, be the change you wish to see”.

The rabbit hole never ends.

It’s ironic I am watching the matrix while discussing this hah.

Here’s a renewed review of my argument sillouette,

Proof that freewill exists:

I define freewill and determinism by the LIMIT argument, and prove
freewill through a process of elimination!!!

The LIMIT is defined thusly, this is a thought experiment:

A person knows every reason why they know what they know.

If ALL of those reasons are external to them, we can define this as
absolute determinism. In this situation, by definition, if all of
those reasons are external, it is impossible to define an internal, it
would make such a being non-sentient (also a disproof of God).

What this proves is that there is no such thing as absolute
determinism in existence.

Now!

If a person knows every reason why they know what they know,

If all of those reasons are internal for them, we can define this as
absolute freewill, the LIMIT (remember, this is a thought experiment) In this situation, by definition, this means that
such a being cannot possible abstract other with which to distinguish
self from. (also a disproof of God). Such a being, would be defined
also, as absolute chaos, which, not to be confused with the concept of
complexity, is by definition, undefined. If you can define chaos, it
is no longer chaos, but rather… complexity.

What we know from this is that there is neither absolute freewill, nor
absolute determinism.

In terms of proving freewill through a process of elimination, we can
define freewill by the remainder of a lack of 100% possible
determinism.

However, this necessary space which is a lack of determinism (it has
to be something else besides determinism), can besides freewill, be
filled with chaos.

But as we remember from before: chaos is undefined, or rather, to the
extent that we define chaos as undefined, chaos does not allow, by
this definition, the capacity to define identity, and it is self
evident, that we have identity.

So, we can determine from self evident identity, that chaos cannot
fill the gap of a necessary lack of determinism, we know that this
space is less than absolute determinism, but greater than chaos. This
persistence of identity, this object permanence of self, through a
process of elimination, only leaves us with freewill as the remainder.

This argues compatibalism. Freewill and determinism co-existing, this
is distinct from the compatibalism of determinism and chaos.

The proof for freewill to any measure whatsoever, disproves God.

There are actually two proof in here: God cannot exist, and freewill
must exist as a leftover from the proof that absolute determinism
cannot exist.

These and defined eliminatively from LIMIT proofs.

I can easily demonstrate that morality is objective and can only exist
if god doesn’t exist, and I’m prepared to debate this with proofs
through contradiction.

So heres the other counter argument people use against my proof.

The closer you look at self, self doesn’t really exist.

To this I reply:

Self, like everything, in nature, exists in what I call a “sweet spot
of perceptual acuity”

What I mean by this, is that if you take a microscope to a tree, it
will no longer look anything like a tree. If you are 40 miles away,
you won’t even see a tree. Neither of these perceptual acuity aspects
deny the trees existence.

It’s the same for identity, yes, the closer you look at it, it ceases
to exist, this is also true the further away you look at identity.

This NEVER negates that identity exists though. Just like it never
negates that the tree exists.

Examining identity closer to determine that it doesn’t exist, is not
the MOST REAL interpretation, it is just one of three, equal
interpretations, one is not deeper or more profound than the other,
and one does not negate the other two.

There’s an even simpler disproof of god than this:

If you simply look into yourself and state, “this is currently violating my consent” then god doesn’t exist.

I’m not seeing a definition… I gave you one last chance and you blew it.

Internal to what? An example: a balloon. There is air inside the balloon: internal, and air outside the balloon: external. Another example: a box. There is a space bounded by the sides of the box, its top and its bottom: some volume of matter may be within these bounds: internal, and some outside: external. If 100% of space was outside the box, there would be no box, here I’m talking about a box, internal or external to a box. How are you defining internal/external here, Ecmandu? Well, Silhouette, I mean internal/external to a box. Thank you, Ecmandu for answering my simple question. No problem, Silhouette.

But the closest we get is implied by this:

Major premise 1: Absolute Determinism ⇔ ∀external
Major premise 2: ∀external ⇔ ¬(∀internal)
Minor premise: ¬(∀internal) → ¬(sentience)
Conclusion: Absolute Determinism → ¬(sentience)
Modus Tollens: sentience → ¬(Absolute Determinism)

So are you saying “internal” and “external” are mutually exclusive, relatively bounded by the limits of sentience? This kind of thing was what I was ready to assume back in my first post, but wanted confirmation, since if this is how you’re using internal and external, especially if said sentience is “of a being”, then we find ourselves directly in the realm of identity, which was the whole reason I went off on issues with identity, because it directly affects the soundness of your minor premise. The validity of the argument as I just syllogised it still doesn’t make the argument true if it is unsound.

Your response is to say it means squat that identity cannot be found upon closer examination, and that’s true of everything:

Your example of a tree is a poor one. Reason being that a tree can be consistently defined over a wide range of points of perception - and zooming in only enables us to define a tree in even more detail.

Identity however can only be defined loosely from a very narrow range of points of perception, and outside of that not at all. Unlike the tree, zooming in causes it to fall apart.

Your conflation doesn’t absolve identity. I’d ask you to try again, but I fear having to deal with the frustration of the consequences.

Please stop reiterating your argument by the way, I know I asked for your proofs earlier, but I didn’t mean the same one several times. After the first time you gave it, I was trying to get to the specific semantics of it, another overview was the opposite of what I was asking for.
And stop making it longer, cut it down to its simplest form as I just did with my syllogism.

And please stop equating chaos with free will, chaos is free but it is not will - how can chaos have a will? A rhetorical question, I don’t want to encourage any further waffling: precise brevity only, if anything at all.

Really?

An electron microscope allows us to define a tree in more detail from say, a human or a car?

Electrons are different in trees than humans?

I have a proof through contradiction.

You’re waffling here.

I’m defining internal and external through the limit.

Defining internal and external of sentience is no easy task. I performed the task, by defining it through eleimination from the limit.

That’s enough to satisfy the definition.

Things outside our control

Things within our control

Electrons come in arrangements, which are different in trees, humans, cars etc.
Identity has no electrons… or anything really.

You know what waffling means, right? If you think syllogism is waffle then I think we’re about done here, don’t you?

Ha. You said that, given min/max% internal and external, contradiction => Compatibilism.
The argument defines Compatibilism by means of internal and external. If internal and external aren’t sound then the argument is no different from “% cat and license => Compatibilism” and saying you’ve defined cats and licenses by this argument.

At this point I really don’t expect you to understand basic logical form.

You’re damn right it’s no easy task - because it’s not a possible task, which is the whole point and it’s why your argument doesn’t hold.

You obviously don’t know what the definition of definition is. You think proof by contradiction is definition of your terms. To use Sam Harris’s phrase, I’m playing chess with a pigeon here.

Is this the definition finally?

Internal: things with our control
External: things outside our control
?

Again we run up against issues of identity: “our” control. No identity means no “our”.
And control? This implies causal order i.e. Determinism.

As I expected, identity defies definition and falls apart, yet it’s a requirement for anything more than 0% Free Will. And control is Determinism.

I think that pretty much closes the door on this one. Determinism it is. Free Will doesn’t exist.

I’m glad we had this little chat.

Now you’re being an ass. A single electron is not an “arrangement”. You know that’s what I meant. Your arguing with oppositional defiant disorder just for the sake of arguing counter.

I presented a logical proof that 100% determinism is impossible. If it’s impossible, then you have to agree that another factor is at play. You offered chaos, but retreated when you found out that’s not possible.

Yes I see what you are saying just the same as I did before. The thing is the will “is you”, it’s not yours. If anything, will is free “from you” and your ownership and control of it. And by the will “being you”, I’m not validating identity - I’m just saying that the invalid notion of identity is more a result of will than will is a result of identity. You “get to know someone” by learning what they want/don’t want. Free Will is mistaking cause for consequence. Will is a result of influence on a mind that you didn’t freely will to be born with.

It’s ironic that in an episode of Futurama, the professor invents a machine that tells you when you’re going to die, and quips something like “it’s occassionally off by a few seconds, what with Free Will and all”. So even the show you praise for its vision of the future where we have all our learning ahead of us is against you, and perhaps I am with you in hoping the future is somewhat like Futurama where ideas like Free Will are put in their place.

By the power of Determinism, you sure can.

Great film.

And yet a single electron is an arrangement of quarks, and presumably so on from there…
The problem is that I do know what you meant.
I’m arguing with frustration that you don’t know basic logical method.
Logical proof must be sound as well as valid.
Chaos is perfectly possible.
It’s been fun, thanks.

Sillouette!! Absolute freewill and chaos solve as the same thing.

Now, you’re just confused sillouette!!!

You’re arguing absolute chaos but no freewill.

I actually don’t think you understand this discussion that we’re having, despite your protest that you understand it too well.

What about two single quarks ?? Etc…

You’re really not making sense here!!

The reason why is because people choose determinism instead of the dark unknown and expanding of themself. Comfort is easier than struggle and learning. The odds would be higher than a few seconds I would imagine, not everyone is the same and some are more spontaneous than others, less predictable based off how much they understand. A lot of the people in futurama were also dumb, just like in this society, the future becomes predictable when’s you have fools running it, since fools are easily predictable. Show me a fool who wins at chess and how do you win at chess? By being strategic? And how is one strategic if only determinism exists? How is it there is a higher and a lower of consciousness and will?

I would say it is not yet free but it is a pursuit in freeing it, whole point of consciousness and why they wrote the religious texts. A guide of such, not to be trapped by desires and to seek answers by thinking to oneself.

Ones intent creates their experience. So if you have no intention of freeing your will and you are comfortable in your answer then that is what you will see. I have been on the determinism side, if you want to take a look at my posts you would see that I have argued for that side as well, so how is it we can understand both sides if only one side exists?

Are you familiar with impulse control technique, mindfulness, NLP and the likes.
These techniques help a person to manage and be control of their thoughts, thus give them a sense of conscious free willing.
This a sense of ‘free will’ but it is limited thus not absolute or complete free will.

If you agree there is no absolute or complete free will, to be more precise and avoid confusion, then you adopted a change to the OP as;

“Relative Freewill Exists not Absolute Freewill”

Such is necessary because the term ‘Freewill’ is a very loose terms and often caused confusions.

I am not yet in a full state of understanding of which I may predict or deduce the end game when we are confined to a moment in time of which is barely progressing due to the collective state of humanity and the majorities disinterest in themselves and the pursuit of education in and of reality.

If I am not in a full state of understanding all that is and will be then I am not in a state of absolute free will, however I do think an absolute free will can exist to the extent of what is currently available in terms of understanding, if that makes sense.

It’s like climbing a ladder with others behind you/below you climbing, so you’re at a higher will, their ego festering prevents you from going up further due to the disorganization of mankind collectively, like them pulling your foot down while you try to go up.

More people who understand to the full extent of what they can = new ideas and new solutions = evolution. We need the full spectrum of understanding, the speed of our evolution depends upon the spectrum and how many do understand.

There are points of what may be considered “absolute” free will but it is not free from yet again, another step higher which is the “lesser” and “higher” will or consciousness that we may observe. I am not sure if knowledge or understanding ends but it seems to be infinite, so the infinity is the absolute will, the freedom comes with what one values. A lesser will or a higher.

So the answer in my eyes, is not if an absolute free will exists but if that absolute free will is attainable by us.