Freewill exists

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.

I don’t resolve that Determinism is the case out of comfort, I do it out of cold reasoning - in fact it is this very same mechanical and inescapable reasoning that is Determinism. I can see what you mean though, that the predictability that Determinism allows you mitigates fear of the unknown, but this emotional benefit is not my interest - the reason it provides such predictability is testament to its applicability and truth to reality. Free Will: “who knows what the future will bring?” - where are the grounds to test this? Knowledge requires falsifiability: control conditions and observe the future outcome as with the Scientific Method - what determines what? Free Will is an observation of how only the present seems - that is how “we can understanding both sides if only one side exists” - it’s the same reason we can understand being fooled by an optical illusion. Apply the Scientific Method and Determinism and you uncover the illusion.

I can intend to free my will all I like, and I do, and still Determinism is inescapable: it’s not a question of which one I would prefer emotionally, or which one I am aiming for, it’s that regardless of any of this, Determinism holds despite best efforts. I don’t “desire to be trapped from seeking answers by thinking to myself” - we all just are, as soon as we look into it and uncover the illusions. Seeking knowledge is self-fulfillingly deterministic by the very nature of seeking knowledge at all - it is the seeking of knowledge.

The whole point of the Scientific method is to retain an open mind and do one’s best to disprove leading theories, which is what I’m trying to say I do, and yet some theories just won’t be shaken. Strategy/not being a fool - all this fits in with Determinism. A fool can’t or won’t follow the reasoning and causation and gets caught out. The strategist is better at determining outcomes and is determined to do so. Struggle and learning just makes you better at determining, and realising that it is this Determinism that you uncover that determined you to partake in this struggle and learning in the first place.

It’s funny how quickly you turned on Futurama btw :laughing:

Ok silluoutte,

Let’s back up there. I used absolute chaos incorrectly with respect to your argument.

I was equivocating (the small portion left over from the remainder was chaos to you - I called that absolute chaos - rather than your correct meaning, that absolute chaos means that everything is chaos!)

So to clear this up, I’ll argue that chaos (not absolute chaos) is your remainder. Chaos (not complexity) is defined as undefined.

I said that the remainder was freewill, you said that it was undefined. However, you didn’t even approach or even try a proof that proved that the remainder was undefined. You’re simply asserting it without evidence and then saying “determinism it is!”

What do you really think the remainder is?

We know it can’t be 100% determinism, through the limit thought experiment of “out of our control”

So what do you think that remainder is?

Let’s go over this again for clarities sake:

Determinism is “out of our control”

What is the perception of “out of our control”? External to us. If we have a stroke, our body to that regard is out of our control.

I use the word reason because this is how we describe internal/external… “the reason this happened was because of x,y,z”

If those reasons are all known to be external (out of our control), then the limit is argued, by using thought (knowledge) as the core:

“Knowing every reason why you know what you know”

That’s the limit.

In pure determinism at the limit: everything is external, all of those reasons of “out of my control” are outside.

What happens at this limit is that it’s impossible here to perceive a self, since EVERYTHING is external!! With 0% internal.

So we know that the limit is never reached by a sentient being in order to prove this at the limit, in fact, it’s impossible, the limit forces non sentience.

What we can argue here is that there must be a remainder. Is the remainder: “within our control”?

Or is the remainder “chaos”

As sillouette argues.

I argue that since chaos is undefined, that it cannot hold continuity of consciousness over time in the way that our awareness works…

The remainder then, must be, “within our control” in a manner which is compatible with “outside our control”

Which is just a fancy way of saying: freewill exists.

I never turned on futurama, I proposed a reality that everyone understands themself and reality as it is, which may not seem conceivable to you because it hasn’t happened and isn’t in ones normal view of happening within this lifetime. If everyone understands determinism and themself and the effects of environment upon self, one can free or trap themself by -value-. There is a higher or a lower. If there is a higher and a lower contrast to will then there is a more free and a less free. Unless you would prefer to just call it less confined.

If I am walking behind you and I see a man pull a knife out and approaching you from behind, would you attribute me in that moment to have more or less -valuable- information than you? It may not be of value to me and so I don’t tell you, you were confined by your ignorance which resulted in your death. IF I did tell you and I attributed value to your life then you would live and thank me for the information, would you not? Value plays the biggest role in information, subjectivity… yes it is hard to take in but the empirical evidence of this is that you can observe it consistently. By being yourself at positions of ignorance and then less ignorance by your choice of ‘value’.

I’ll never turn on futurama! I am just proposing a society without fools, which one who knows how determinism works is less predictable.

It’s like determinism is becoming inverted of itself… it’s turning inside out, conscious is determinism(subconscious) turning inside out so we may be conscious of it but if you find joy in studying determinism and you willingly consent to it, then you are /free/ in your feeling free, because you know how to attribute value and care properly to satisfy yourself without doing harm. One can become less trapped. One can choose to abuse such or which traps one goes into. So if one can choose and understands the trap for what it is, how is it a trap? The consent is in the staying alive, the value.

The freedom or confinement comes from the value. Ones man hell is another man’s paradise, this is why this is the way it is. Freedom usually comes from acceptance or forgiveness, does it not? Why does it grant a freeing experience? Because if one does not place value on another then they cut the source of power that individual has over the other. Same thing with forgiveness of the past and addressing it, one is not free from the past if they do not understand or accept it for what it is.

Also note how you stated ‘cold’ reasoning, that is an attributed value to reason, which reason itself is value attribution… so that is how it may become blinding. What is “cold” to you about reasoning?

So determinism and it’s reasoning is a view point of specific value attribution upon determinism as cold, which shows the idea of it being an inescapable system or a “trap”. Pessimistic/realistic.

Free will is an idea of value attribution of which is the opposite to determinism being a trap, due to the understanding of how ‘value’ functions. Optimistic/realistic

It’s a matter of your personal value of which shows which side to you personally. If I don’t see it as a trap, am I still trapped? What is possible within determinism is an infinite amount of possibilities, which show how large the “trap” or system is.

If you wanna say it might look like there is categorically no Free Will at this point in history, but you’re willing to keep an open mind that evidence/argument may pop up some time in future, then fine. One day the effects of gravity might change or disappear and we’d be trapped in our previous mindsets if we refused to move from treating it the same as before - sure. There might be some extra dimension of thought that has occurred to nobody yet that gets Free Will back off the hook - okay. I’m not expecting these things to happen but I’m not going to bury my head in the sand if they do. Determinism isn’t trapping me, it’s just describing everything in everybody’s life right now and I’m respecting that.

I’m glad you have maintained your loyalty to Futurama.

Thank you.

This is what I was saying. And even that, tentatively so - my point is that if (big if) there is a remainder, it’s not free will, it’s some degree of indeterminacy. You don’t like this idea of no remainder, I do, because your “proof” depends on an internal and external to sentience, which is dependent upon identity, which cannot be defined to any satisfactory defree, like a tree, car or human can. So if the concepts that ground your argument don’t hold up, the argument that’s built on them doesn’t hold up.

I’m not trying to prove that the remainder is undefined, I’m just saying “if” there is a remainder it’s indeterminacy. What I did “approach or even try” was to disprove your argument that there has to be a remainder (hence your conclusion of Compatibilism). If there is no remainder then there is no Compatibilism. That’s all I’m doing. I’m reading your opening post and critiquing it. “Determinism it is” because arguments for a remainder are invalid - that’s all I’m saying.

You need to define the identity behind the sentience behind the external/internal divide, behind your argument for Compatibilism. And I don’t mean by vaguely conflating it with clearly definable things like trees, cars and humans, on the grounds that definition gets hard when you’re only ever really far away or really close. Clearly definable things are clearly definable from many perspectives in between, and getting closer tends to build on these perspectives for as long as particles are constituted of smaller particles - but if there’s a limit there, then yes, going further sheds no further light on otherwise clearly definable things just as much as it sheds no further light on identity. But if you have to push things to extreme conditions just to say “look, now they’re the same” then you know you’re clutching at straws… which is the whole point of what I said in my first post. I lead you to a trap “define identity or your argument is unfounded”, and asked you if you wanted to fall into it, or withdraw your argument.

The language here is much of the problem. “Control” has agency already loaded within it, so using it to back up the agency of Free Will is circular.

All control really is is the ability to follow what’s determining what. The extra information causes you make better choices, assuming you were determined to heed the extra information and take it into account, and assuming you were determined to be inclined to use such information.

Control is the foundation of your newest argument here, and like identity, it can be picked apart and undone as a foundation to your overall argument. If control is dubious, as I’ve shown it to be, again the internal/external distinction is unfounded. Free will does not exist.

Silluoutte,

We both made very long arguments previous to this.

Let’s make these posts short to understand our positions on a very critical matter:

You have argued that it’s not an issue that identity cannot be at the limits, not because that’s not true, but because identity doesn’t exist at all?

Is that your main argument?

Do you actually believe that?

It’s an illusion, like Free Will, so its existence can be “in your mind” just like the results of optical illusions. You can think you have identity, you can think you have control and agency - it feels real, but so do dreams and hallucinations. I mean identity is basically written into the semantics of language itself: + .

But do they actually exist? No, I believe they do not. It’s a mish-mash of consistencies over time at best.

Individual Life is an illusion in whole, so I don’t quite understand the argument of freewill being an illusion. Consciousness is obviously real and determinism is obviously real, value is obviously real and contrast, higher and lower is real and if value, contrast and consciousness are real than how can freewill be an illusion?

Individual life is temporary, which an illusion is temporary… we all stem from a one thing, which the one thing is not temporary and it is the system of which you describe as determinism yet consciousness evolved out of full determinism which was when we were subconscious animals and trapped by instinct completely, the consciousness and our ability to value is the freedom of the will of which one may use or dismiss, it is the loop of which has no closing end, due to knowledge and understanding never running out. What seems cold to you in the form of reason, from my personal experience the truth seems bitter until understood, then one feels ‘responsible’ for reason, instead of reason being ‘cold’.

Reality is the dream, the present moment is what makes it seem like it is not. The confinement to a present moment ‘is’ the illusion… a freewill is when one understands the effects(future) of the cause(past). So how can one be in a trap or determined future if the individual knowingly is the cause and effect. Is that not an example of freewill by using determinism?

No one is free of the game, what you are free in, is how you play it.

Silluoutte,

So this is my reply to you about identity, aside from the perceptual acuity argument where I said that one wasn’t better than the other.

If I walk with you on a sidewalk, and I point to a tree, and I say that this tree is cool… check it out!

I have agreed to three things:

I exist
You exist
The tree exists

If I thought identity was just an illusion, to not be a hypocrite (logically non contradictarily consistent) (logic) I would necessarily restrain from doing any of this.

But I do it and you do it.

My take on this is that you are a “don’t judge me as I do, but what I say”

Your actions betray you.