New Discovery

The freedom to make decisions between some possibilities is evidence that free will exists
What does not exist though is absolute free will because there are restrictions on what decisions can be made
Not everything that is actually possible will always be considered because of moral or psychological objections

It may be the norm to you, but it’s wrong. If you could not have done otherwise, could you have done otherwise? No.

Surreptitious: The freedom to make decisions between some possibilities is evidence that free will exists

Peacegirl: Being free to make decisions gives you the ability to choose without external force but you are controlled internally the minute you make a decision one way or the other, granting you no free will whatsoever

Surreptitious: What does not exist though is absolute free will because there are restrictions on what decisions can be made
Not everything that is actually possible will always be considered because of moral or psychological objections

Peacegirl: Just because a choice is available doesn’t make it possible in reality. If you are restricted due to moral or psychological objections, you are not free to choose freely because free will implies you can choose what is distasteful in spite of a better option in your eyes. IOW could you kill someone who did nothing to hurt you if you had the option not to kill? Show me how free you are. If you were free you could choose either option equally with no compulsion either way, which is impossible given my example.

You make a decision and then you choose to stick to it of your own free will so it is not something that is imposed
Free will therefore does not invalidate the need to have to make decisions or else you would never make any at all

You cannot freely choose anything which violates your own moral code but you can everything else
Free will is therefore not absolute but conditional and it is within that domain that free will exists

What would a rock need… what kind of property… to have some freewill?

I say ‘some’ because it’s become a trend around here to believe that people can have a little freewill rather than a lot… or be somewhat determined rather than completely. This is of course due to a misunderstanding of what ‘absolute’ means… and more importantly, when and to what it can be meaningfully applied. While I am baffled by this strange use of the concept, I’m obliged to play along at the moment and ask: what would it take for a rock to ‘sorta’ have freewill?

^^^ be advised: this is a trap waiting to be sprung on you. if I were you, I’d not attempt to answer.

Well, of you were any indiginous culture, this answer to them would be “duh” “every rock has its own rock spirit”

You cannot freely choose anything which violates your own moral code but you can everything else
Free will is therefore not absolute but conditional and it is within that domain that free will exists.

Peacegirl: You can’t have free will some of the time. It doesn’t work that way, just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant. But its really not a problem to say you were free to choose something. Everybody gets it even though nothing is actually done of your own free will. That being said, the importance of this debate revolves around moral responsibility. I have yet to show how the truth of determinism doesn’t lessen responsibility; it increases it.

It would if determinism was absolute as then one could not be responsible for any decisions they made
But it is not absolute as free will exists so we have to therefore accept responsibility for all our choices

Please hear me out! This discovery is a two-sided equation which I haven’t been able to explain since everyone throws in their views. This absolving of responsibility if will is not free has been a stumbling block for centuries. If we can’t blame people for hurting others, and we must excuse them, then they can easily get away with anything they want. But the truth is you can’t have both free will and determinism. One cancels out the other. IOW, you can’t be able to have done otherwise and not be able to have done otherwise. It’s a complete contradiction. So how is this resolved? Compatibilism doesn’t work because the compatibilist who said the wrongdoer chose freely (due to the lack of heavy restraints such as addiction or OCD and is therefore responsible) could not have chosen freely. So where do we go from here? Is anyone interested in this discovery or are people just interested in the old debate which has gotten us nowhere?

Dude. I was talking about a crack rock. Y’all prolly don’t know nuthin bout that though, cuz y’all cowards don’t even smoke crack.

WTF? I was responding to Surreptitious’s post. I think you posted on the wrong thread.

Are you smoking crack, peacegirl? On the stem-fast diet?

ECMANDU said that, not you. You’re starting to get thread-vision, man. Slow your roll or you’ll end up like the rest uh dees suckas.

Whatever! I may be getting thread-vision! :laughing:

That’s not the language gap I am talking about. The one I focus on here is the one that you avoid like the plaque. It’s the far more fundamental gap between the language the author used and the language that would be necessary to close the gap between what the author thinks he knows about these relationships and all that would need to be known [that could be known] about human interactions on this infinitesimally tiny planet in the vastness of all there Is encompassed in an understanding of existence itself.

You don’t go there, won’t go there. Why? Because there is no way in which you could possibly have closed this gap other than through all of the assumptions that he made regarding how convinced he needed to be about how unimportant it is to consider the gap at all.

It can’t be an important consideration because taking it into account might bring those “intellectual contraption” assumptions of his crashing down to earth. The irony here being that from my frame of mind he was compelled to sweep all of that under the rug because psychologically nature had compelled to do that as well.

Then this rather typical exchange between us:

What on earth does this point have to do with my points above?

Note to others:

Is her point here a compelling rejoinder to my own? What am I missing?

That doesn’t answer my question though. If the choices that I make are inherent, necessary components of nature’s immutable laws the internal and external are just two inextricable sides of nature’s coin.

Likewise, both those in the government making the laws and those not in the government obeying or not obeying them, would, to the autonomnous aliens, be like the characters that we watch in a film. Up on the screen they seem to be choosing behaviors here and now but we know better. Same with the aliens. They watch those in the government and those not in the government seemingly making free choices. But they know that Earthlings, being in a wholly determined segment of the universe, are really only just “choosing” to do what they do per nature and her inexorably unfolding laws.

Although, again, I’ll readily admit I am not really understanding this correctly myself. But I’m not the one insisting that others must think about all this exactly like I do or be wrong. Period.

Indeed, it is this psychological need on your part for others to agree that you are always right about these things that, in my view, is the primary impetus behind your posting here.

The typical objectivist mentality. Only somehow in your head you entangle both the either/or world and the is/ought world in this utopian “progressive” future.

Me, I always come back to this:

Indeed. Only regarding both the is/ought world and questions as profoundly problematic as free will, I prefer to call them existential contraptions myself. Why? Because, in my view, so much of “I” here is embedded/embodied in the particular life that we live, rather then in that which science and philosophy can actually pin down as applicable to all of us.

You just [u]know[/u] this. And the fact that you do is proof enough for objectivists of your ilk. Whereas I would never argue the same about my own stabs in the dark here. Let alone profess to being able to prove it. You can’t even admit to yourself the extent to which your own “proof” here revolves around all of the intellectual assessments the author makes in his own “definitional logic” assessment of free will.

Just as Tom Clark’s assessment revolves entirely around the meaning that he gives to the words in his own “intellectual contraption”. How has he actually demonstrated that this “analysis” is in sync with what, say, science has concluded [or failed to conclude] regarding the functioning brain in the act of choosing this rather than that?

As long as you are unable to convince me that what I want to do here is not wholly in sync with what nature conpels me to want to do here, you are missing my point about the manner in which I construe autonomy in a determined universe as but the psychological illusion of actual choice rather than the fated and inevitable psychological reaction “I” feel in “choosing” to want to.

Your own wants as well here embedded in this assumption.

The mystery is still how nature has managed to evolve into life evolving into human brains evolving into human minds able to believe all sorts of conflicting things about this and many other interactions.

How it evolves further into minds [like yours] able to convince themselves that they and only they actually grasp all of this correctly while minds like mine are filled with all manner of considerably more ambiguous uncertainties.

The mystery is still nature itself going all the way back to how and why it became what it is or always was what it is.

Culminating finally in a mind [like yours] able to adamantly confirm that…

Don’t even think that you can dissuade this mind otherwise. It has too much invested in this “peace and prosperity” future.

Just as in the here and now don’t even think that you can dissuade those who embrace Donald Trump’s rendition of America’s future.

And rest assured that minds of this nature are in no way the embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Just ask them.

Though, sure, my own mind is included here in turn.

That’s why it must always come down to that which minds of this sort are able to demonstrate as true for all of us. And I can assure that mine can’t.

In “total perspective”. Exactly. Given that this perspective is seen by particular determinists to be encompassed in nature unfolding only as it ever could have given laws of matter it is wholly comprised of, good and evil are just “props” in nature’s entirely scripted narrative we are compelled to call the “human condition”. “Everyday experience” isn’t just sometimes a part of all this and sometimes not. But to pin down how and why that can possibly be true? We simply don’t know enough about existence itself to even begin to answer that.

If the human brain is matter entirely in sync with the laws of nature than saying that evil is still around is “for all practical purposes” the same as saying earthquakes are still around. The matter that comprises the shifting plates like the matter that comprises the human brain are just different configurations of matter compelled to unfold as matter – all matter – must. The fact that the plates don’t “choose” to shift while we do “choose” to be good or evil, doesn’t make the part about matter – all matter – being compelled go away.

Unless of course I am not thinking this through in the most reasonable manner. Which I readily concede may well be the problem here.

No, my point is that different people hold behaviors in contempt as evil that others embrace as the embodiment of good. Abortion, gun control laws, animal rights, private property, gender roles, homosexuality…

Who decides which behaviors here reflect your “progressive” future?

Here you fall back on this:

No, you don’t get my point at all. It then comes down to whether you were ever able to get it at all. Up to now. And whether nature compels you to get in the next post or the one after.

You are always extremely vague here. When certain knowledge is brought to light and everyone grasps it then governments will disappear and “most things” will be privatized. What on earth does that mean with respect to an actual set of conflicting goods in an actual set of circumstances?

Then it’s back to, “what if this and what if that?” Everything tumbling down into a future as you imagine that it must be in order to attain and then sustain “peace and prosperity”.

Again: Bingo

How you understand this is not how I understand it given that human “volition” in my determined universe has no less compelled John to “choose” to set up the dominoes as it has compelled the domino to topple over.

The autonomous alien sees only what could ever have been on a determined Earth. The domino having no “agency” while the “agency” of John reflects the psychological illusion of having chosen to set up the dominoes instead going to bed.

John tells himself that he wants to go to bed instead of toppling the dominoes but he was no more able to not want to tell himself this than the domino is able to topple or not want to topple over. John either will or will not topple it in sync with the laws of matter compelling dominoes and brains to do what they must.

Thus:

[/quote]
Again, as though the things that we want and desire are somehow out of nature’s loop. Volition and desire being at one with nature but somehow just different enough to persuade enough people to embrace the author’s discovery and thus usher in the author’s own understanding of a progressive future.

He having been compelled by nature to discover how to distinguish between “benign” and “malignant” choices/behaviors.

yeah, takes, like courage to shut down your emotions when you, like, can’t deal with them.

Iambiguous: Indeed. Only regarding both the is/ought world and questions as profoundly problematic as free will, I prefer to call them existential contraptions myself. Why? Because, in my view, so much of “I” here is embedded/embodied in the particular life that we live, rather then in that which science and philosophy can actually pin down as applicable to all of us.

Peacegirl: Only an immutable law of nature can be applicable to all of us.

Iambiguous: You just [u]know[/u] this. And the fact that you do is proof enough for objectivists of your ilk. Whereas I would never argue the same about my own stabs in the dark here. Let alone profess to being able to prove it. You can’t even admit to yourself the extent to which your own “proof” here revolves around all of the intellectual assessments the author makes in his own “definitional logic” assessment of free will.

Peacegirl: Free will cannot be proven, period. There’s no logic involved.

Iambiguous: Just as Tom Clark’s assessment revolves entirely around the meaning that he gives to the words in his own “intellectual contraption”. How has he actually demonstrated that this “analysis” is in sync with what, say, science has concluded [or failed to conclude] regarding the functioning brain in the act of choosing this rather than that?

Peacegirl: You’re setting up an epistemological error in saying that Tom Clark is wrong because science hasn’t found it in the brain. You can’t find the answer to greater satisfaction in the brain. This can only be seen by watching humans interact, although science is confirming that there is no free will through other experiments.

You (the “I” you refer to as Iambiguous) do have the capacity to stop if you want to. There are no giveaways with my inflection.

Iambiguous: As long as you are unable to convince me that what I want to do here is not wholly in sync with what nature conpels me to want to do here, you are missing my point about the manner in which I construe autonomy in a determined universe as but the psychological illusion of actual choice rather than the fated and inevitable psychological reaction “I” feel in “choosing” to want to.

Peacegirl: Autonomy is the ability to be independent but never really free of influences that affect choice.

Iambiguous: Your own wants as well here embedded in this assumption.

Peacegirl: What assumption?

Iambiguous: The mystery is still how nature has managed to evolve into life evolving into human brains evolving into human minds able to believe all sorts of conflicting things about this and many other interactions.

Peacegirl: It is cool, isn’t it? What this has to do with the price of eggs, you got me!

Iambiguous: How it evolves further into minds [like yours] able to convince themselves that they and only they actually grasp all of this correctly while minds like mine are filled with all manner of considerably more ambiguous uncertainties.

The mystery is still nature itself going all the way back to how and why it became what it is or always was what it is.

Peacegirl: irrelevant

Iambiguous: Culminating finally in a mind [like yours] able to adamantly confirm that…

Peacegirl: Man’s will is not free!

Iambiguous: Don’t even think that you can dissuade this mind otherwise. It has too much invested in this “peace and prosperity” future.

Peacegirl: I sure do

Iambiguous: Just as in the here and now don’t even think that you can dissuade those who embrace Donald Trump’s rendition of America’s future.

Peacegirl: Now you’re comparing me to Trump’s promises? :astonished:

Iambiguous: And rest assured that minds of this nature are in no way the embodiment of this: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 5&t=185296

Just ask them.

Though, sure, my own mind is included here in turn.

That’s why it must always come down to that which minds of this sort are able to demonstrate as true for all of us. And I can assure that mine can’t.

Peacegirl: Yours can’t but mine can.

Iambiguous: In “total perspective”. Exactly. Given that this perspective is seen by particular determinists to be encompassed in nature unfolding only as it ever could have given laws of matter it is wholly comprised of, good and evil are just “props” in nature’s entirely scripted narrative we are compelled to call the “human condition”. “Everyday experience” isn’t just sometimes a part of all this and sometimes not. But to pin down how and why that can possibly be true? We simply don’t know enough about existence itself to even begin to answer that.

Peacegirl: Evil is part of our present narrative but not part of our future narrative! I know you don’t believe me. Oh well!

Of course evil is still around. We haven’t utilized this discovery or applied the principles!

I’m not disagreeing with you, but the fact that we have choice, although not free, is quite different than an earthquake where there is no choice. We can, given a changed environment, react differently due to different preferences. Earthquakes cannot unless we learn how to prevent them, which then changes the number of earthquakes. I understand your point of view. Just bear in mind that by creating a better environment for everyone through these principles, we can prevent the desire to hurt others as a consequence of being hurt ourselves.

I don’t want to call it a problem, but it is a stumbling block.

How can there be gun control when there will be no more guns? How can abortion be an issue when the causes that lead one to want to abort will no longer be an issue. When it comes to animal rights, people will be more humane because they won’t need to kill inhumanely to save money. Private property belongs to the individual who bought the property, just like someone who bought food or clothes or shelter. Your concerns are easily resolved once these principles are understood. Gender roles? Homosexuality? Who will be doing this judging? No one. You are coming from the vantage point of this world, which is why you can’t believe it’s possible.

It’s been clearly delineated in the economic chapter which you have no desire to read. Of course, it’s only a blueprint but enough to get this new world off the ground.

You haven’t the slightest clue what this discovery is about. Volition and desire are out of our control, which means the choice of one’s own volition is not free, although in conversation it’s okay to say I did this of own volition or desire, which does not me you had free will.

I think most people know that to injure someone with blunt force is a malignant choice.

Only where one of them is absolute as absolute free will cancels out determinism and absolute determinism cancels out free will
Where both are partial however and therefore do not impose up on each other at all they can easily co exist in perfect harmony
Even if you dont accept this you cannot deny that it is entirely rational

It is absolutely rational to qualify your words when you say “you did something of your own free will” to actually mean you did something because you wanted to in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is the truth and that which gave you no free will at all, in the final analysis. You can argue until the cows come home, but the truth is the truth is the truth and cannot be argued away by logic. :-$