Freewill exists

“That’s a very determined quark!”

Negus.

“That’s a very determined law of physics!”

See where I’m going?

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

Also why the yell of euphoria. “Eureka!”

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

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

Also, if I may, the sense in which Einstein didn’t invent the atom bomb. He had the Eureka. It was beautiful, a jzzoy.

Oppenheimer and them, they were seeking masters. Why also there was no original thinking from them, no discoveries, no actual “science.” Just mathematical refinements of Einstein’s science.

Yes, I think I went to far with that last post. i dunno.

I’m just sayin’. Determinism is easily undone.

Your fear or pride filled denial of attachment (even when one controls their attachment by attributing value to anything) to religion or spirituality or attempting at understanding it is what is trapping you or delaying the inevitability of your mind changing, whether you believe it or not. The books and spirituality in general have great significance, you should take less pride in yourself and put more pride in the fact that these books are ancient stories collected and preserved to depict man experiencing consciousness/psyche in the beginning of when consciousness evolved from the subconscious and that you can read them, if you have had a negative experience with spirituality then you should dismiss such, you state you are unbiased but are biased and it is blinding you. All you have done is change the semantics, it’s easy to feel right or special that way, when one thinks they are naming something new that has already existed long before and been described in different language and context. I used to be in your position, determinist, no free will… experience of myself lead me away from that, which is spirituality. Knowing thy self.

Well if a lack in/of emotional state exists then you lack the experience of value attribution to see that there is a will that is free. You don’t have energetic frequency? Everyone has energetic frequency. Ever felt someone’s bad energy around you? Or that something is not right? Ever seen the experiment of yelling at a plant or glass of water vs talking to it with love? We manipulate energy, that’s what we do at the cost of value attribution, that’s what we do and always have been, it is what we are.

Not needing an ego? Everyone has an ego, the ego is malleable identity, there are other aspects to consciousness as well, such as shadow, self, anima/animus, unconscious/subconscious mind, etc.
One can be self or one can attach themselves to the ideas of others and be made by them and not made by self. The ego is what you project yourself as and you have power over that projection by attributing value to what matters, you can be real or false and judging by how you lack the experience of reflection in meditation or any spiritual practice to discover or understand self I’d lean more toward false or an acceptance of indoctrination of specific ideologies of what ‘you’ and ‘we’ are.

He who lacks experience or imagery, is he who lacks understanding. There is no understanding blue without the image and the same goes for any understanding of any concept, there is no understanding of information, without the imagery of it. So if you do not understand yourself, how can I trust your judgement of what you believe to be ‘is’?

Change = information embedding into imagery by reaction of instinctive unconsciousness.

Existence is neither satisfactory or unsatisfactory (it is what it is), (it is what you make it) is life, which is consciousness coming from the subconscious (evolving instinctual complexity and a granted understanding of such)… your literal freedom is making it either or. How do you not see that? Well I described why you do not see it, above. You should take this serious and reflect on your knowledge, it will reward you for being humble. I had to reflect on mine and I have come back here after years with new views and understanding, yet there is always more to understand and learn.

Yes I read that you wrote “who”, but since it was an invalid question, I corrected it to “what”, which has a valid answer.

Things determine, and never by themselves alone. People are things, with no clear beginning and end to separate them from their context - just like everything else.

Everyone experiences the illusion of “themselves” being somewhere in there, determining things ex nihilo - but I keep pointing out the obvious contradiction: “It requires a mind separate from matter such that it is simultaneously immune from being determined by matter, yet can still be influenced by the causation of matter in order to inform decisions, and yet still able to interact with matter once a decision is made and realised.” Free Will advocates are trying to have their cake and eat it by proposing the self as involved in the causal chain yet not, selectively in a very specific way, just to conform to the illusion that their conscious “self” is alone the arbiter of all choices.

I’m glad you’re not hating - rational discussion becomes impossible when at least one interlocutor gets emotional.
Tell this to Ecmandu who is under the impression that since he lacks the ability to understand/accept my argument, “everyone else knows I’m full of it”.

The behaviour of things like quarks seems to be determined by laws of physics. Laws of physics are superficially determined by people, but since people are refining laws of Determinism in order to describe the whole world, including themselves, their creation is what is causing them to create their creation in an infinite loop. Continuous experience just “is”, it’s the doing and the being in continuity in one “everythingness”. It’s what people are trying to dissect into Discrete Experience in order to glue it back together with ever-improved narratives - the most advanced and predictive one yet by far being Determinism. So the best you can get in trying to model Continuous Experience, and question what models the model, is to end up in this infinite loop. Not very satisfactory, but the alternative of retreating to more dated conceptions such as “Free Will” where “the self” can somehow be the prima causa of things, breaking the infinite loop - this doesn’t absolve it from its internal contradictions such as the one I mentioned above.

Determinism isn’t “your master”. It’s a model of behaviours between things that influence each other in both masterlike and slavelike ways. It’s not even the masterlike or slavelike ways itself - all this conception of Determinism as a restrictive force is nonsense. It’s not like “oh no, I have to obey master Determinism because I dare not seek to escape its chains”. It’s however free you may feel, however many boundaries that you break, creations that you make, inspiration that you think and feel, it all works in a way that Determinism can model just fine. It almost seems like people don’t want there to be a way that explains things - like a resistance to the intellectual. If “you” are the prima causa and not even Determinism can describe the sheer freeness of your spirit, then you can achieve anything! - and that’s a nice feeling. The fact that Determinism describes and explains even this all the same dampens this feeling for some people? Why? It’s not a cage. If anything, Determinism is a tool to “free” you even further. Of course the better language is that it increases the quality and quantity of ideas that can occur to you. The irony is that, if anything, it’s the slave that needs to feel like there are no reins, because reins are what imprison them, but to the master, feeling like there are reins gives them ever more “freedom” to manipulate slaves to his will… It just makes me laugh how desperate cases such as Urwrongx1000 are growling the literal opposite of this truth with all the ceaseless gnashing of a cornered animal.

By profound contrast, with Einstein, as a creative thinker he would be aware that genuine creativity hits you from seemingly nowhere. All creative types are familiar with the surprise of a Eureka moment, seemingly coming out of nowhere. It hits you, you don’t “hit it”, any “self” is the object of creativity, not the subject. It therefore seems backwards to say the creativity came from you. Deterministically, of course it originated inside of your mind, unconsciously though. You can consciously mull through a logical problem and hit a solution, but this is not the same thing - perhaps you know what I mean and are familiar with this experiential difference? It’s almost as though you just need to be the right vessel for creativity to strike - Einstein was one such vessel, and those who built on his ideas were hitting solutions rather than getting hit by creativity.

Agree, ideas come to us in moments of “eureka”, they surface from the subconscious into the conscious mind.

I get my ideas from myself first and my mind, then I test their consistency through others, that’s how we should proceed with philosophy, we are the uniqueness that may be used to evolve. Rather than to adopt first and appeal to authority. I only use others as references to prove the consistency in my thinking, never an appeal to their automatically being correct.

A good and true post.

Oooooh, I see what’s going on here.

You changed your mind from Determinism, so you’re assuming that other people (or at least me), who believe(s) in Determinism are just thinking like past-you :laughing:

Wow, and here you recommend humility, and to me of all people. I don’t even have much pride to speak of - I do give honest credit where it’s due though, even if it’s to ideas that just happen to have come through me - perhaps that’s what is giving you this impression of me? I’m a Determinist who conceives of all people as continuous with the rest of experience, not islands but blurring in and out of relative context with environment and all others - yet somehow you have this conception of me as some kind of proud egotist: the exact opposite of what results from this. Something must be making you think you know me extremely well after a handful of posts over the course of a short period of time… But the enormous degree to which you are wrong and also hypocritical, and most likely just engaging in psychological projection, is really quite hilarious.

Going by pictures of you, you look about half my age and you’re going on about the lack of experience that you’re just assuming I have… If I don’t meditate and am averse to religion, you assume I have always been this way, “something must have happened to me”, and there’s no other ways to gain equal or even better understanding/experience. It must be me because it can’t be you, correct?

The arrogance! #-o
And you think it’s me who is in need of growth to eventually get aaaaall the way up to to that lofty cloud where you are. Cloud 9 is it? Ah, youth… such naivety.
As with all the new-age nonsense you’re indulging in, maybe one day when you grow up you’ll think less of your former self - just like you’re trying to do to me here. But I’ve seen it all before so many times it doesn’t mean anything to me anymore, so I’ll just wish you well with all the continued evolution that Determinism has in store for you.

To address a previous post of yours that I hadn’t got round to responding to yet:

…which is why this isn’t my argument or Determinism. It’s Fatalism if something is “supposed” to happen.

I’ve said it several times and I’ll say it again with more conviction now my suspicion has been repeatedly confirmed: you do not understand what Determinism is.

First and foremost it’s important to point out that Determinism is a description, or an explanation rather. It’s not a proscription. It’s not a restriction, it covers all things whether wild and pushing boundaries, or scared and following the crowd. You have this bizarre conception that it limits you, when all it does is explain behaviours whether they seem unlimited or not.

Determinism doesn’t enforce rules that you have to abide by, it describes the behaviours of nature enacting on nature. Any enforcement is done by nature, not by the Determinism that describes it - your argument is like objecting to the messenger rather than the person who wrote the message.

Understand this, and all the strength of will in the world is completely understandable in terms of Determinism. You can work out a model of why nature is causing some natures to rise to fame and achieve success as well as why some natures give up, and Determinism is the best way we know how to do this - by a long way.

It’s no wonder you switched from Determinism - you thought it was something else!

Some smaller issues + some closing stuff:

Unfortunately not true. Many organisms have what’s called a Circadian rhythm that will tend to wake you up and make you tired (amongst other things) at regular intervals - provided you don’t mess with it too much of course. It’s all unconscious.

Assuming the second law of thermodynamics is wrong and entropy somehow just reverses magically?

The main difference between the conscious and unconscious is that the former is best at solving mid-level complexity whilst the latter is best at solving the overly simple or overly complex.

Your conception of consciousness leaves you vulnerable to the “Homunculus Argument”. If “we” are like these little men who operate our body, the little man presumably needs his own little man to operate his body - ad infinitum. Either that or you’re positing some “ghost in the machine” that runs you into the mind-body problem. Will cannot be simultaneously free from influence, whilst being influenced by experience, whilst also able to influence. The self as “consciousness” is just a loose end conceived as a primitive explanation of how there appears to be a subject dynamic - and yet as soon as you try to find it as the object of your search, it is no longer the subject - the subject is now observing a new object. The subject is ever evasive to the point that it cannot be ascertained at all. The best you can do is claim some kind of inference that “well something has to be doing the observation!” If you want to be a Dualist you have all your work ahead of you to make any sense of it whatsoever. Or you can just admit that the findings of studies more and more suggest that even consciousness can be controlled like a remote control car just the same as any other part of the body - and funniest of all, people still feel like they’re completely in control the whole time! Oh science and Determinism, how dare you break the illusions of the old and mystical where all understanding was ahead of us… Consciousness is more like an echo that manifests and reinforces what the unconscious has already decided by itself. Either way, consciousness is just as much subject to the electromagnetic force that determines neurons firing that determines your conscious experience. As much as it feels like consciousness is the free driver, actually examining the whole thing reveals it really isn’t.

You will still evolve just the same however well you’re understood deterministically. You can still think and choose just as originally as you did before and it will appear just as free as before - nobody’s taking that away from you here. Don’t feel so threatened by people being able to understand people better than you want to think they can. You like the romance, the woo-woo - Determinism can explain why this is so too. I’m not even remotely as limited as you want to think I am - but how else would you understand something you don’t yet understand, except in terms of what you already understand? Doesn’t mean you can’t come to understand it - I’m doing my best to explain it to you, but the more you resist and insist that it’s how you used to be rather than how you could be, I’ll be getting nowhere. I don’t think you understand the degree to which everything you’re saying isn’t a new way of thinking for me, it’s obvious why people fall for Free Will.

And silhouette says I’m not terse!

Silhouettes posting style actually reminds me of someone.

“My” (I don’t own her) mother married a guy who spent 3-4 hours a night cooking dinner … and whenever there was a fight about anything (which he started), he’d always use how much work he did as the defense of his argument. He was a malignant narcissist.

I don’t actually think silhouette is a malignant narcissist like him …

Not by a long shot!

However, I do think silhouette absorbs a similar technique in posting to show how serious silhouette is, in a way that doesn’t address the critical points, while making silhouette look like he’s putting so much effort into his posts that it makes him seem unimpeachable.

No no, you answered correctly. You said Determinism, not determinism. It isn’t the most creative or ingenious answer I have ever heard, but it was a proper answer to the question. I was refering more to Artimas here, who answered an actual thing. Thence, you know, who not what, etc.

I think Artimas is on a right track. Do I see things I disagree with or have arrived at different opinions of? Sure. But taste is so much more important than accuracy.

Probably philosophy, proper philosophy, is when the distinction disappears.

There is not much difference, or no difference, between the ‘Who’ and the ‘What’. Organic life, Biology, has more “freedom”, is freer than, stones, water, wind, trees, etc. The higher an organism evolves, is evolved, the ‘freer’ it is claimed to be. An insect has more ‘freedom’ than a vegetable. A lizard has more ‘freedom’ than an insect. A bird has more ‘freedom’ than a lizard. A mammal has more ‘freedom’ than a bird. A human has more ‘freedom’ than a mammal.

Silhouette, not by coincidence, conveniently ignores all this. He wants to equate the ‘freedom’ of a human, to that of a rock, ignoring everything in-between. Because if he admits that humans are ‘freer’ than rocks, then he invalidates his underlying argument that “everything is determined”. How could everything be “determined” when rocks hypothetically are (by Four Fundamental Forces, by Physics, by Natural Law, by Gravitational Law, etc), but humans are far less so?

What makes the “less so” possible to begin with?

Is it merely “a feeling” that humans are ‘freer’ than rocks?

Or is it a fact? And if it’s a fact, then Silhouette cannot continue to use “Science/Physics” to defend his position…

No, my mind didn’t change from determinism because determinism doesn’t just cease to exist, it’s not about denying determinism… it’s about accepting the fact that it doesn’t end at determinism, hence the argument of free will, it’s the next step out of determinism and so it has been proven in evolution as well, the steps are as clear as day.

(Matter/instinct)Unconscious > subconscious > consciousness(Ability to understand both sides) < subconscious < unconscious(Mind/instinct).

Determinism on the most basic of levels is a plant growing because water and nutrients are there or even more basic, a pebble moves because of a strong wind, free will is at a higher complexity than both that subconscious and unconscious example of life/existence, instead of the plant growing from water alone, it gets watered by a conscious individual whom is more complex than the plant and the water. It’s a higher step of instinct, an evolution of cause and effect of which we are the effect of determinism that may cause effects as well, desired or not. If we can -exploit- the system, then that is freedom.

We aren’t replacing determinism, we advocate another step and yes, there is a next step and is one after that as well and again, and again to an infinite degree. You on the other hand, deny another step while using the very same ‘next step’ to argue your points, it’s contradictory. That’s like me sailing the ocean and denying that it’s blue.

What is humble to you? a man who already has accepted the others argument of determinism and admitting that determinism exists as it does but advocates a next step, or the other whom ceases to move to a next step or denial of there even being a next step whilst being on the very step to argue against that step, attributing it all under determinism, all stemming from a bias/avoidance of self which stems out of spiritual practices of meditation and self awareness.

Yes, we are continuous experiences, does a stone understand it’s experience? We do, that’s the freedom. We can create more or less experience for ourselves based off of values. You said yourself you don’t meditate, you don’t have much emotional state, you stay away from religion/spirituality, from what I assume is due to a fear or pride of it through possible negative experience or misunderstanding. I don’t need to know you to understand that I myself am free to experience how I wish to experience to, I only need to know you, to help you. I don’t claim to know you, unless your previous post was a lie, I made what I feel to be a logical/reasonable deduction of why you stay away from spirituality/religion in a whole, even if you technically don’t and possibly have misconstrued the idea of what it even is, most of the time when people dislike religion it’s over fear or ego(pride), which prevents a full understanding of it by the avoidance of it. I am not stating you’re an egotist, I am stating, your biased view of religion/spirituality blinds you of what it truly is.

Explain to me, what you view spirituality as and what your experience with religion/spirituality may be, we can clear this up right here, easily.

Well, you’re the one who portrays a bias here… I used to have the same bias and for good reason until I found that it isn’t all based off of or around the experience that created such bias to begin with. I understand how bias works, to assume I don’t is to call me stupid. You either have a positive or a negative bias, your avoidance, shows a negative bias toward the subjects I mentioned, crucial subjects in getting to know oneself. I have no bias toward it anymore, I merely do it justice in attempt at explaining it for what it is because I understand it now, not because I go to church on Sunday or associate myself in every aspect of religion heavily. I am continuing my understanding, not ceasing at determinism just because it exists and happens, it isn’t the only variable and you already know such just won’t admit it.

I forgot to also add, Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, if you didn’t know.

We all need growth, change is inevitable, your choice on if you wish to delay or speed such up. Not on cloud 9, in reality, with a clear vision of it. Nothing I have said is new age. It’s been around since before you and me and it will go on after you and me. I don’t think less of you, which is why I am here trying to show you the next step but you won’t even question your being possibly incorrect due to a formed bias, which bias creates a lack of understanding due to comfort in such bias and not treading on past it to achieve the understanding… which is why I suggested for you to reflect without distraction and to feel. We may not evolve if we determine to not evolve or we can evolve, if we determine to evolve. Do you not see how destructive our species is? Seems like freedom to me, what other species destroys themself like we do? Know why? Freedom of value attribution to choice. Or just value attribution in general.

If there is no confine or limitation, then how is there no free will? Why do you argue against a free will or self determination if there is no limit or confines and you just admitted such here.
A behavior having a determined outcome is not a lack of freedom in choosing a behavior. Nature is the very deterministic cycle of which granted a free will (consciousness)… there is a higher and a lower.

And we are acting agents of nature that can influence environment to our own needs or desires. How is that not freedom within the system itself?

Yes, you can use the system… that is freedom though my friend… dogs can’t use this system like we can, rocks(unconscious) can’t, we all think we’re all saying different things than we are, because we don’t all think or describe the same. It’s the freedom of an individual in a present moment to make those choices to pursue a nature of success though, it doesn’t just happen with no value attributed by the individual because it appears that way to us, it has to be fought for and planned for and there is no planning to fight for without an aspect to will of which is free.

That’s change though, not time. Rhythm is change. Time is merely a measurement of change that we humans invented to measure such, such as circadian rhythm, That rhythm is caused by evolutionary path/environment, which is measure-able change.

Yes it is unconscious. Which is why we need a clock to wake up on time for work, our circadian rhythm evolutionary bodily cycle may not always be aligned with what one freely wills or chooses to do by value. If the effect is planned for, it was never not a free choice to bring that effect.

The law of entropy is not going to reverse, it’s going to start back over. It will all die in chaos and re-condense to burst and expand again. It is a cycle, never ending, re-occurring and since we won’t be here, conscious life, it will seem like a blink of an eye for conscious life who have the concept of time because to the unconscious/subconscious aspects, time doesn’t exist.

No, because the little man doesn’t have consciousness, it’s a primitive version of us which is why it serves us… we are conscious and far more complex than a cell or simple neuron. Which is why I laugh at them being used as comparison in arguments, it takes many cycles of life and death of their working to serve us in order for us to even exist period, our consciousness is free due to unconscious/subconscious cellular organisms that we began as. Just because you know what an unconscious cell does doesn’t mean we can so easily predict the whole of the human that the cell works for. We are merely larger conscious versions of them, which is why we are destructive and appear as a virus or parasite to earth, so I have heard from many that think we are parasites.

We weren’t always free from the confines of experience in terms of instinct, what I am saying is, we weren’t conscious for nearly the entire current universe’ existence of unconscious/subconscious experiencing and evolving and we are embedded with those experiences, which is an infinity for us to understand, the resulting consciousness is our freedom of, through and for experience. We were influenced so we could cause influence. No one stated free will came before determinism, though consciousness -was- determined, which is the will that is free and without being confined or limited to pure instinct.

We aren’t like the little men, that’s the entire argument of free will… we’re conscious and cells aren’t.

We were confined before by determinism, we experienced… now we may influence experience as well as experience, a determined will that is free in that of understanding and the pursuit of such. The will only becomes, more free. We don’t have to directly be influenced or experience something first hand to use a priori… what is logic and reason if not deducing, free of direct experience? Were you there, conscious of the Big Bang when it happened? So then how do you understand it if you did not experience it? A priori… which I have also stated is the freedom in consciousness but only through a long time of unconscious/subconscious a posteriori

It isn’t about a romance of it, it just is, a higher and lower exist and it only can go higher or lower, based on ones value attribution, which is their own personal freedom to make those choices in and of value/reason. If people can understand other people better than those who practice philosophy, then what’s the point in philosophy or pursuit of wisdom? The differentiation clearly shows in society, that you’re wrong. People don’t understand other people as well as you may think, because most people don’t even understand themself. How can you understand another if you do not understand yourself? you don’t, just like you can’t with love as well.

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

Oh, jeez, come on. I black box the whole thing, but it gets tiring reading these kinds of straw man arguments. A human has the most complicated object we know of, the human brain, which is connected to a wide range of inputs that we do not, yet, think rocks have. So causation is going to be vastly more complicated, free or not, vastly more complicated. Hell, I’m a pantheist, but rocks have nothing resembling the sensory systems or muscular nervous systems with their unbelievable complexity that humans have. So just once I would love

just love the free will crowd to notice their own fear that maybe it isn’t freedom, but rather just complexity.o

I am no fan of the determinism crowd and their position has all sorts of problems, but this kind of trash argument by the free will side

strikes me as fear denial.

I am sick and tired of people of all sides presenting themselves as so sure and confident and never owning up to their own fears and confusions. (this doesn’t just have to do with free will vs. determinism, but it’s here also)

Obviously humans can do an incredibly wider range of things and can respond in a huge array of ways to the incredibly diverse set of causes, internal and external, washing through and over them.

That doesn’t explain how this vast set of causes is not utterly determined. It just makes it very hard to predict. But then fuck we’d have a hard time predicting where the next batch of pachinko balls will all fall, but that doesn’t make a pachinko machine free, or does it?

So, mock and mock and ad hom the determinists and present

that is, front,

as if you are confident,

when the very ludicrousness of the ‘argument’ presented here
coupled with the ad homs,

smells like denied fear.

How does the uncaused vantage from which I choose enter the stream of causation and why isn’t it in turn caused by my desires and brain states and…

Nah, we don’t have to worry about that, let’s just use straw man comparison where rocks are supposed to be as free - which would mean have a similar set of complicated responses which all might be determined as humans - as humans.

Let’s snort and feel superior to hallucinated arguments as if they solve the hard problem of free will.

And sure the dterminists have all sorts of problems to deal with, such as how can they possible know if they are being rational if they believe in dterminism and they get all ad hom and smug too. But that isn’t much of an excuse.

Everybody runnign from fear.

And where does that fear go.

Well, some people end up getting that spiral of denied fear floating over them.

Feel your own fears. Join the real humanity.

Presenting as fear-free has been confused with being right and courage for so long and it has done so much damage and it is just tiring to those who don’t do it. Presenting as fear-free is precisely the opposite of courage.

Yet we’re here from the rock as symbolizing the unconscious aspects of reality. How is it a strawman? If determinists can say “i know what an atom or neuron is doing and so I know what you’re doing” then the same argument can be made for comparing the unconscious to the conscious. That’s not a strawman, that’s reality. The unconscious and subconscious aspects in reality and in humanity are what granted consciousness, value fits into this argument and we project value, nothing else does. Which this value can become entrapment or liberating, that’s up to the individual who values.

To compare neurons with the entirety of consciousness or the human, is a ridiculous argument. I am not a single neuron and my brain is not a single neuron, they are subconscious/unconscious… humanity is conscious. I don’t understand how it’s not easily seen, that there are LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. If there are LEVELS of consciousness then that is a DETERMINED more free and less free in regards to INSTINCT. admit it already so we can move on to how we’re going to wake up the monkeys in society.

Determinism is cause and effect yeah? Well free will is understanding that cause and effect and with attribution of VALLUE. Free will is the VALUE one can determine or project onto other things or aspects by creating or letting go of attachment and past/present/future.

Never said I was free in an absolute sense but the absolute freewill is the same infinity that determinism has already laid out for us to tread on its path of understanding knowledge. Are you saying that understanding or wisdom ends and is not continual and infinite? The day wisdom and change ends will be the day you can say free will isn’t absolute. Your decision to pursue a more free will than yesterday. That’s on you. The absolute is observable but may not be attainable, never stated we had an absolute free will, only that it is visible by the same continuity of information that determinism has determined.

I don’t move to learn because of my own wish? So I didn’t sever all attachment with my past and experience to remain unbiased in searching for understanding? So then what’s suicide? What’s value? I can easily kill my self, the fact that I don’t IS MY wish, acceptance. I never said it is all due to me that I am here, it is due to me after I understood I am here and why, who, what, when, where, how, that makes it my choice. Understanding grants responsibility.

I’m unconscious to why I have my own desires? What’s suppression then, what’s psychology? Am I? Speak for yourself. If I have a bias, I can remember back in my past and sever attachment to the experience of which created a bias, welcome to Buddha. You speak of genetic desires? Oh? What’s molecular/chemical treatment by medicine? What’s being conscious of environment so that we may shape our own genetics by consistency of trial and error? Don’t make your self seem so small, you’re a a millions of years old experiment, you aren’t as small as you’d like to think. You should pay attention to the future and advocate for it because the answers are coming, to which you will have no more arguments that confine a human will, and if no confinement then there is no argument of which will isn’t free. What’s genetics, what’s ancestry? Pretty sure a doctor has to trace ones ancestry to figure out an illness embedded in genetic history, of which genetic history IS able to be altered by environment. So tell me, where are you not free?

Spinoza must not have practiced the buddha’s philosophy of attachment and value attribution.

Consciousness of Desires alone aren’t what make one not free, it’s the -freedom- to act on those desires or not based on what? Oh, in value… well look at that.
Free to weigh the losses/benefits of every cause and effect scenario, exploit. I don’t think dogs know chocolate kills them, they require direct experience to value. We’re past that to an extent because we have already been embedded with the direct experiences in our subconscious/unconscious past, which granted us what? Well welcome to consciousness.

You misconceive what I state. I never stated we are free of the game, I stated we are free in how we play it. Want a new set of desires? Reset yourself. Only a man insecure with himself will use the argument of desires being the confines against a will that is free in use, even if those desires don’t have to be followed through on, freedom isn’t always built off happiness, in fact, much the opposite.

That an appeal to authority? Funny how humans look in the past to take the pasts word solely, when they are the present because of the past and are genetically superior. What’s evolution if not? Respect your roots sure but no one is saying to remain tangled in them.

Again, I’m a compatibilist.

The person who is a determinist is afraid of judgement (consent violation)

The denial of determinism is a fear of assenting to consent violation.

These positions both come from fear.

Both exist, it’s not hard to see. I don’t deny either side. Absolutes on both side exist but may not be attainable to us, the fact of the matter is, we can see the absolutes and are in the middle ground.

If you think rocks are “more complicated” than humanity and the human brain, or that inanimate objects are in anyway ‘conscious’ then, big lolz…

Artimas is right.

Silhouette and the whole “fundamental force quantum quarks are as ‘determined’ as organic life, particularly humans” is the real “strawman” argument.

Not mine…