This guy and you, have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.
Yes. You have to exist in order to exist. No freewill there.
But when you and him discuss about how we can change our lives by not believing in freewill.
That’s freewill.
You and him are wrong.
It is a direct contradiction that you can change your mind once you realize there is no freewill.
Changing your mind is the definition of freewill.
This guy and you, have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.
Peacegirl: It is YOU that has no fucking clue!
Ecmandu: Yes. You have to exist in order to exist. No freewill there.
But when you and him discuss about how we can change our lives by not believing in freewill.
That’s freewill.
Peacegirl: You’re out the door!
Ecmandu: You and him are wrong.
Peacegirl: You are 100 percent wrong and you are not helping our world!
Ecmandu: It is a direct contradiction that you can change your mind once you realize there is no freewill.
Peacegirl: What the fuck are you talking about? Determinism doesn’t mean we can’t change our mind! Your conception of what no free will is IS the problem.
Ecmandu: Changing your mind is the definition of freewill.
Peacegirl: You have NO IDEA what you’re talking about!!!
Two Conceptions of Free Will
Matthew Gliatto
Published in ILLUMINATION
That’s basically the assumption that I start with. Only I am immediately confronted with what may or may not be the fact that I was never able to not make that assumption. And that libertarian free will and compatibilist free will are just two sides of the same six of one, half a dozen of the other coin. Nature flips it autonomically going back to whatever brought into existence nature itself.
Whatever that means.
Then the part where all of this is discussed in “concepts”. What are concepts but “worlds of words” in which words define and defend the meaning of other words. Definitional logic as it were.
In other words, it is not likely to get around to Mary above with a bun in the oven that she is undecided about getting rid of.
Oh, well…
Click.
Let me explain that. “Click” in the sense I am assuming that I do have at least some measure of free will here. I am opting to conclude what I do but only because in thinking it through to the best of my ability I did not opt toward a different, conflicting conclusion.
Here perhaps what may well be the biggest conundrum of them all. Since we don’t have access to an understanding of what the “initial conditions” were when matter first came into existence, what can we possibly know for certain about it now?
All we do seem certain of is that lifeless matter evolved into living matter evolved into us. And we are actually able to be cognizant of the past, the present and the future. But cognizant in what sense?
And that’s before we get to solipsism, sim worlds, dream words and the Matrix.
Iambiguous: Here perhaps what may well be the biggest conundrum of them all. Since we don’t have access to an understanding of what the “initial conditions” were when matter first came into existence, what can we possibly know for certain about it now?
All we do seem certain of is that lifeless matter evolved into living matter evolved into us. And we are actually able to be cognizant of the past, the present and the future. But cognizant in what sense?
And that’s before we get to solipsism, sim worlds, dream words and the Matrix.
Peacegirl: If will is not free everything that happened, is happening, or will happen are already predetermined but this does not mean our efforts to make the world a better place is an exercise in futility. It’s quite the opposite since we have the capability to increase knowledge and decrease ignorance, all without a shred of free will!
Peacegirl: If will is not free everything that happened, is happening, or will happen are already predetermined but this does not mean our efforts to make the world a better place is an exercise in futility. It’s quite the opposite since we have the capability to increase knowledge and decrease ignorance, all without a shred of free will!
PG. you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.
There’s a disorder called adult ODD (adult oppositional defiant disorder).
It means that when you’re told to do something, you do the exact opposite.
How are you going to get those people on YOUR side?
“You have no freewill”
“Well fuck you, I’ll just do the opposite of what you say”
I’m going to be perfectly honest with you.
Your mind is teeny.
Peacegirl: Who is telling anyone what to do that would give a person the desire to do the opposite? Where does this idea fit your conception of no free will? You seem to have a misunderstanding of what no free will means. It does not mean we can’t choose, or we become less responsible.
And you could not have said it any other way, since you are angry and rude, moved by your subconscious passions, you were determined to be an arsehole.
You reflect your confusion about the issue of determinism and you fear that the peri-Christian myth that you were brought up to beleive might not be true.
How utterly predictable you are.
Polemics often work MUCH better than a 30,000 character post that says the same thing - TLDR. Right?
From another thread…
No, what I put at odds is our capacity to put anything at all as we do because nature compels us to think, feel, say and do only that which must unfold in the only possible world…or our capacity to put things as we do because “somehow” the human brain is matter that evolved into minds on this planet able to think through particular things and opt among conflicting conclusions about complexities such as this.
In other words, you are trying to understand why because you were never able not to or you were able to choose to do something else instead but settled freely on deciding why here.
Again, let’s go back to capitalism and socialism. Now, given free will, “I” am “fractured and fragmented” in regard to which comes closest to “actual liberty”. How about you? Can you demonstrate to us which of these political economies does in fact come closest? Or, perhaps, it’s another one altogether?
Awareness and ignorance are very different things in a wholly determined universe and in one where human beings here on Earth are, in fact, able to freely note arguments able in turn to demonstrate why rational men and women are obligated to be aware of this rather than that in regard to capitalism and socialism.
That’s when, given free will, I make the distinction between moral objectivism and moral nihilism.
Iambiguous: No, what I put at odds is our capacity to put anything at all as we do because nature compels us to think, feel, say and do only that which must unfold in the only possible world…or our capacity to put things as we do because “somehow” the human brain is matter that evolved into minds on this planet able to think through particular things and opt among conflicting conclusions about complexities such as this.
Peacegirl: Why does the ability to opt for this or that translate to freedom of the will? This capacity doesn’t change the fact that the laws of our nature compel us to think, feel, say, and do only that which must unfold in the only possible world, but it does not mean that the laws of nature can force us to do anything against our will. That’s what many people believe determinism implies; that they are not agents of their own choices, which is false. In fact, it’s not a contradiction to say “I did this of my own free will (I.e. because I wanted to; nothing forced me to do it). But using the term this way does not mean we have free will in the sense that we could have chosen otherwise, once a choice is made.
Iambiguous: In other words, you are trying to understand why because you were never able not to or you were able to choose to do something else instead but settled freely on deciding why here.
Peacegirl: His asking why actual liberty is at odds with “the human brain being in sync with physical laws” could not have been otherwise now that the question was posed, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have a choice not to ask that question. Once again, having a choice does not give us the free will to go against what we prefer. It also does not mean we are puppets without the absolute control NOT to do what we don’t want done. We have the final say even though the final say is determined by the available options given us at any given moment in time. We are compelled to pick the option that gives us the greater satisfaction or preference based on our heredity and environment. We CANNOT choose what we don’t want when what we do want is available rendering one choice an impossibility.
And more to the point; freedom to choose is limited under circumstances that our brain has been unable to come to terms with ?!?
There are many causes that limit our choices, some external, some internal. This does not change the basic principal that we have no free will because we are compelled, based on many factors (some unconscious) to choose that which gives us greater satisfaction.
PEACEGIRL:
Greater satisfaction keyed by evolutionary bred by more limitless and pleasurable processes &\or deontologically fueled devolution delimited by narrowing choices and increasing dogma?
It makes sense, but the pleasurable forward process has to outweigh the reactionary break-ige to make sense.
I believe we are moving toward more limitless and pleasurable processes by the fact that humans want to problem solve to make life better. Unfortunately, progress is often slow. Looking back, however, major strides have been made and will continue to be made.
Two Conceptions of Free Will
Matthew Gliatto
Published in ILLUMINATION
Yes, the arguments. After all, what are arguments here but words defining and defending other words. So, sure, if words like “compatibilism” are thought by you to mean what they do “in your head” then you merely have to connect the dots intellectually between the premises you think up and a conclusion that is derived “by definition” from them.
We all do that here. Instead, where things inevitably become problematic is when we are faced with the task of demonstrating to others how “for all practical purposes” this is applicable to the actual behaviors we choose.
Okay, but what if you define free will as a situation in which the “internal” brain/mind components of a choice just “somehow” permit you to opt among alternative behaviors…even though neither science nor philosophy is able to explain how this came about when matter evolved into us.
But then [to me] this part…
“I am free to go outside right now…even though, in the philosophical sense, my future behavior has already been determined.”
…continues to stymie me. What “on Earth” does “in the philosophical sense” mean here in regard to my future behavior? To me it just comes back to what you have come to believe – re dasein – these words mean “in your head”.
When [for me] “in my head” here and now “for all practical purposes”, my future behaviors will be what they can only be because the external and the internal factors are inextricably intertwined in the laws of matter.
Or…
Their brain compels them to think this given that their idea of an obstacle itself was hard-wired into them by the laws of nature.
Or think of yourself dreaming that you ask a child whether they would rather go to Wendy’s or to Dunkin Doughnut. The child tells you she’d rather go to Taco Bell. And there you are at Taco Bell ordering a Big Mac on your way to a great adventure.
Just nothing more than your brain doing its thing.
Depends on children’'sense stage of development of his brain. The brain has parts and some do, through inexperience can not make the difference as of yet between different fast food places. To them, their desire for big Mac may come from other than golden arched venues.
Piaget had a good case for this in the illustration where up to 3 year old, kids put on a balcony with a transparent floor, literally could not reflect on the levels underneath; whereas above 3 they could and became fearful of the depth involve.
The indication is that the lobes of the brain are beginning to cross-channel, but does not necessarily indicate an absence of primordial and inknown( to the child) parts.
Sorry to interrupt (moo), but:
facebook.com/10000369670299 … 13009/?d=n
Good book: Chosen but Free by Norm Geisler
That was a great clip! Absurd theory but fun to see where it led. 
Two Conceptions of Free Will
Matthew Gliatto
Published in ILLUMINATION
Just as some tell us there’s a God “up there” who set it all in motion? Maybe. But, so far, to the best of my knowledge, no scientist, philosopher or theologian has been able to actually introduce either one to the world. The ghost may well just be a machine going back to whatever brought existence itself into existence.
But if science ever does fully explain the process, was science ever not able to fully explain it by rote? The ghost being the machine, it explains itself. That’s the mystery. Matter becoming conscious of itself as matter becoming conscious of itself. Some then insist that “somehow” the ghost is more than the sum of the brain’s part. An “I” emerges that transcends the machine…an “I” that shapes and molds the machine [the body] in order to carry out its own commands.
We simply haven’t pinned down exactly how or why yet. And, until we do, we just have to accept that whatever “leap of faith” we take to free will “in our head”, that will have to do.
All of which may or may not be intertwined in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. Compelled to or not.
Peacegirl: Dasein from what I gather is a person’s journey through life that is individualistic and therefore cannot be put into a cookie cutter mold when each person’s circumstances, opinions, ideas, thoughts, perspectives are so vastly different. There’s no disagreement there.