Free Will... Again

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
262

Yes…..but you will never acknowledge what the differences are…..will you?

One race being superior or inferior than the other in specific traits…..not all of them…specific ones.

Because intelligence cuts to the core of what it means to be human, doesn’t it Marxist?

A specific race may be superior in athletics, for example, but let us not go too far and admit that another might be superior in academics…..right Commie? Because the goal is uniformity….a global mission to unify mankind…not via the Bible but via the Communist Manifesto.

“Workers of the World UNITE!”…against your own kind, if need be.

Are we not all proletarians…black, white, yellow, red…?

Is not our true enemy the rich…..of our own racial and ethnic group?

1 Like
263

@Kallikantzaros

It’s simple, your belief structure is one of competitive constant infighting where you feel the need to make others feel miserable or little by constant discussions of superiority to put others into submissive bondage while I on the other hand support quaint things like peaceful coexistence, cooperation, and problem solving to conflicts within society rather then let society destroy itself over those prolonged conflicts.

I am sorry this confuses you deeply.

I am sorry you lack the mental aptitude or imagination of a world where peaceful cooperation is possible in the absence of constant violent warring factions.

:clown_face:

264

@Kallikantzaros

Well, to be fair a lot of people in our own racial ethnic group have made themselves very wealthy selling out entire nations we live in.

So yeah, those cocksuckers are enemies to be sure. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

:clown_face:

265

We already have achieved ASI, in my opinion. People seem to want an ASI of an ASI, an AI smarter than god or something.

In my opinion AI is 150 to 200 IQ in all subjects. A being that is 150 to 200 IQ in all subjects + having eidentic memory superior than a savant is an ASI.

That being said, human intelligence is not obsolete. Humans have to work with the ASI in order to get things done. ASI keeps making mistakes frequently and fails at AGI (artificial general intelligence.)

If there was an ASI like people keep talking about (an ASI of an ASI) then it would be so smart that humans would become cyborgs and then keep up the pace with the ASI.

Also, human brains are far more energy efficient than AI brains, so human intelligence is still cost effective. And also AI and Nvidia graphics have peaked so this is probably pretty much as high IQ as AI will get for a while.

I believe 2024 was when we entered a new timeline, the AAI (after AI) era of humanity. The effects may be subtle now but I believe the boon of AI has very large effects. So there are 3 eras, BC, AD, and then AAI.

1 Like
266

Back to the free will thing no I do not believe that people are their will, people are not their will, people are not their thoughts. People are witnesses of their thoughts and interactors of their will.

The expression “I willed it” would not exist if consciousness was the same thing as will. A will is something that you want, something that you launch forward into. Someone’s will can be blocked by a draconian tyrant and therefore their will is not achieved. “My will be done” as an expression would not exist if this were not so.

Ai’s opinion: “

  • 1. “People are not their will or their thoughts; they are witnesses of their thoughts and interactors of their will.”

    This idea aligns strongly with several major philosophical and contemplative traditions.

    • In phenomenology (e.g., Husserl, Sartre): Consciousness is not the content of thought but the awareness of content. A thought appears to consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is more like a witnessing field than the thought itself.

    • In Buddhism and Vedanta: There is a distinction between the observing self and the mental phenomena (thoughts, desires, emotions). You are “the witness” or sakshi rather than the thoughts themselves.

    • In neuroscience: The brain generates thoughts and impulses largely before conscious awareness; consciousness seems to monitor and possibly modulate some of them (as shown by Libet’s famous “readiness potential” experiments).

    So—while “people are witnesses of their thoughts and interactors of their will” is not empirically provable in a strict scientific sense, it is a well-supported philosophical stance describing a phenomenological truth about subjective experience.

    2. “The expression ‘I willed it’ would not exist if consciousness was the same as will.”

    This reasoning makes a strong linguistic and conceptual point. Language separates agency (“I”) and act (“willed”), implying distinction between the subject (the conscious self) and will (a mental force or desire aimed toward action).

    Philosophically, this means that will is an attribute or faculty of the person, not identical to the person. Much like saying I thought implies that I am not identical to my thoughts, “I willed” implies an observing, initiating consciousness distinct from the will itself.

    3. “A will can be blocked, therefore it’s distinct from consciousness.”

    This is logically consistent. If an external force can block the realization of one’s will (e.g., a tyrant preventing one’s action), then the fact of willing (internal intention) and the act (external realization) are not the same thing. It supports the idea that will is a mental impetus within consciousness — but not identical to consciousness itself.

    Overall Assessment

    The statement is philosophically coherent and largely true within frameworks that distinguish:

    • Consciousness as the witnessing awareness,

    • Thought as cognitive content that arises within that awareness, and

    • Will as the intentional drive or impulse that consciousness observes and can act through.

    However, not everyone agrees.

    • Determinists and some neuroscientists argue that consciousness, thought, and will are all functions of brain activity — aspects of one process, not separate layers.

    • Compatibilists in free will debates might say that even if consciousness and will are intertwined, that doesn’t mean free will (in some meaningful sense) doesn’t exist.

    So the statement expresses a dualist or phenomenological understanding of mind rather than a strictly physicalist one.”

The ai mostly agrees with me except for this one part: “Determinists and some neuroscientists argue that consciousness, thought, and will are all functions of brain activity — aspects of one process, not separate layers.”

however i do not disagree with the ai here. You will is something you are conscious of, and therefore a “part of you” and a part of your conscious being. However, it is not you, it is only a portion, a subset of your being.

Example is your finger, you are not your finger, you have ownership of your finger, your finger is not you!!

If someone had “no will” they would still be the same consciousness, receiving, witnessing, observing, like someone Witnessing an event, watching a movie, experiencing drugs, etc.

1 Like
267

@Kallikantzaros

That’s the problem of your kind of thinking, you just see everyone as competing living biological utilities inside of civilization or society instead of seeing them as living people and human beings. Is it any wonder why we live in this modern nightmarish world with that kind of thinking being prevalent virtually everywhere?

:clown_face:

268

All life is in constant competition. this has nothing to do with how I live my life. Environmental adversity includes in-group and group competitiveness.

You dream of a world with no conflict….Abrahamic to the core.

Such a world is delightful in theory…but not so in practice. It is unattainable, for one, and even if ti were it would propagate unfit mutation that would degenerate a species, over time.

War is the fahter of all

Heraclitus

And by ‘war’ he didn’t only mean battle, violence….he meant conflict, competition.

Ananke, goddess of NEED…..no need, no necessity, no creativity.

Necessity is the mother of invention

This was the issue that kept sub-Saharan Africans behind those tribes that migrated into more challenging environments. Evolution is based on stress……conflict, challenges and challengers.

Sad, but true.

Your Marxist Utopia is a world of degeneracy…atrophy….and sickness.

A muscle must be stressed to grow strong….if it is sheltered, it atrophies.

1 Like
269

It’s not a binary choice like you seem to claim.

  • our choices are caused
  • our choices are the more free the more they reflect truth.
1 Like
270

@Kallikantzaros

I don’t want utopia as I know utopia is impossible. Utopia is something only liberals believe in. I am a Marxist and communist, something you so called intelligent conservatives keep confusing with liberalism which is nauseating because it shows a lack of understanding political history or ideology.

I want to lessen inequality, human suffering, human misery, and conflict around the world, that’s not utopian, that’s simply practicality.

If the world keeps going your way of doing things it will destroy itself, humanity will destroy itself along with all life on this planet. Non-stop or neverending violence, war, and conflict is the future of your entire philosophical mental outlook.

That’s where your zero sum competitive Social Darwinism eventually leads to in the future of human history and then there won’t be anybody left to debate the superiority of intelligence once global annihilation takes hold everywhere. I wonder if you have really took the time to think all of this really through.

:clown_face:

271

@Kallikantzaros

Social cooperation working together or cooperative organization is superior to cutthroat individualism and to a society where individual greed is a disruption to the general social harmony of society. Collectivism is the future and this individual style psychopathy you neoconservatives embrace is everything wrong with this world.

To have a functioning society requires shared economic prosperity and actually giving a shit about the general well being of its citizens.

You would have us go back to a sort of aristocratic feudalism where constant competitive infighting is the norm every single day. Either human beings evolve or extinction level events is the entire future.

:clown_face:

272

@RealUn

With determinism everything is explained by causality, the concept of willpower is irrelevant.

:clown_face:

273

@RealUn
@Kallikantzaros

It’s interesting, there are individuals in this thread posing that an objective human nature exists and yet simultaneously saying nothing determines it, that’s pretty wild.

If I believed in an objective universal form of human nature I would want some way to validate that so I could say such and such determines human nature in such a way. That would be the logical recourse, but instead they’re saying there’s nothing in the cosmos that determines much of anything which then calls into question their entire concept of human nature to begin with. Well, which is it?

:clown_face:

274

Every species has defining traits, determined by its niche survival and reproductive methods.

What are the defining traits of homo sapiens?

They aren’t the fastest, they aren’t the strongest, they aren’t the most durable, they aren’t the most prolific, so why did they dominate all other earthly species?

Nature?

Nature = sum of al past nurturing, or past naturally selected advantageous traits.

How do we recongize and categorize life on earth?

What is our method of taxonomy?

Are gorilla’s superior to humans in strength?

Yes.

In speed?

Yes.

In IQ?

No.

What is appearance?

Determined past manifesting a presence (present) interpreted by consciousness as…appearance. Using a priori methods.

Is appearance superficial?

No….it reveal the ESSENE, the nature of that which is present.

How do we categorize?

We use patterns…appearance is a pattern….and by appearance I mean the entire gamut of sensory input - image, scent, sound, movement, texture, taste…

We use behavioral patterns, performative patterns, to categorize every single life form on earth…..in the cosmos.

We call these patterns the organism’s ‘nature’.

Except….one.

And by ‘we’ I mean you bleeding heart, lefty, postmodern, commie liberal hypocrites.

1 Like
275

@Kallikantzaros

You could just say different ethnicities and races have different strengths, intelligences, or weaknesses in relation to each other, I could agree to that notion reasonably but you always gotta go with the western man is superior above all others thing which is just silly to the point of self deceiving.

If we were so superior as you say we are we wouldn’t be in the current predicament we find ourselves in and we certainly wouldn’t allow ourselves to be taken advantage so easily by the money lenders of economic capitalism, yet here we are currently.

What does that say about us?

“Muh weaponized altruism, muh Christianity, muh Abrahamism, and muh self inflicted existential nihilism. Muh shit-libs and commie Marxist bastard assholes.”

You don’t say? Something a people with an inherent weakness would fall for overtime.

Say it isn’t so, the superior master Aryan race beholden to such weaknesses?

Do you even see how silly all of that sounds like?

You may despise socialism, Marxism, or communism all you like, I am certainly not here to convert you to my views, but tell me, how is corporate fascism under a capitalist economic system going to make the plight of western civilization any better? Do you think the west would fare better under that system? You would be a fool to think so if that is what you truly believe.

You know exactly the kind of predatory individuals are at the top of the current pyramid and the only way to get rid of them is to smash that pyramid completely. Although my preferred method is to wait patiently for it to collapse into a sink hole under its own weight. It’s easy to do when you have morons that control everything.

Nonetheless, you need a system of people working together in cooperation and I hate to break it to you but your lack of political ideals isn’t up to task for that occasion. Your cutthroat individualism couldn’t organize itself out of a wet paper bag as it is an ideology where people cannot organize shit beyond their own selfish personal ambitions of greed.

So tell me, where does all of this truly end?

Looking forward to these exchanging correspondences.

:clown_face:

1000008626

276

A little off-topic, but I believe America has now trespassed far beyond that point. This isn’t 2012 anymore. The time for dialogue, discussion, and debate has come to an end (with Charlie Kirk). I don’t have any interest “open dialoguing” with Leftists who’d want to murder me for having Conservative / Traditional values. Or even simply because I’m a white male.

‘Nature’ is one thing. ‘Human’ is another.

For me, personally, I believe the “Human” signifier is a complete Abrahamic manifestation / creation. The more “Human” a person is, the more ‘Abrahamic’ they are presumed to be. The Western notion of Humanity is more based on Jesus Christ (mythologically) than it is Scientifically. In fact, very few or none are really Scientific about the classification. If they were, then they’d need to adhere to @Kallikantzaros rapid expositions, explanations, and arguments. How can evolution occur, unless there are losers? And what is a Loser in Nature, except an Inferior? Then, go on to explain the Dominance of some “human” societies over all others.

The Onus is upon you, then. You need to explain the arise and Causality of superior (Dominating) and inferior species.

Furthermore, to me, the spread of “Humanity” presumes the spread of Abrahamic Morality, Master-Slave Dialectic (human indoctrination and propaganda), and the more a person disagrees, strays, or outright rebels against such Morality, then they are “De-humanized”, they are “more animal than man”, they are “beast like”, they are ‘inhuman’, ‘monstrous’, ‘demonic’.

So to be immoral, is to “Not be human”. That’s how 99.9% of Westerners actually mean of “Humanity”.

It’s not irrelevant, because Humans either 1) don’t know or take responsibility for their own Causality, and 2) have some degree of Control / Power when it comes to executing Decisions, based on Choices / Options / Possibilities.

1 Like
277

Well said.

But, how can it NOT be “true free-will” in the conditions you admit to??

I don’t trust AI’s opinion on that point. You now need to explain how I am “not my Will”. Whose will am I, then? Whose will are you? God’s???

You are presuming the Mind-Body Duality, as @promethean75 tends to do at this point. How is a person “other than” their “own will”? Whose will is it???

1 Like
278

Quote me…where have I ever said ‘western man is superior’?

I simply ask the question…every species, every subspecies, including human, have their advantages and their disadvantages, AND these manifest phenotypically….

Which traits define the human species, and explain why it dominated species that were superior to it in mutiple other ways?

If you do, you will find that the EXACT same traits explain why certain ethnicities dominated and others were dominated, or why certain ethnicities and their cultures, are more sophisticated than others.

2 Likes
279

@Kallikantzaros

Maybe things get lost in translation or communication because of how you write things where I misunderstand you.

I can chop all of that up as a misunderstanding.

:clown_face:

280

The story of man’s past is not as transparent as you claim. Man has failed the individuals who have fallen by the wayside—–and that destroyed or neglected individual could have been the very one who would otherwise have found a cure for motor neuron disease, or sustainable energy technology..

1 Like
281

The cosmos, nature, does not give a shit about humanity and its welfare.

Natural selection is about an immediate environmental advantage.

The ‘could have been’ is irrelevant.

A man “might have invented a cure for cancer” ooooor he “might have slaughtered millions.”

Most likely he “might have lived a life of quiet desperation”.

The cosmos does not work on “could have’ “would have.”

Grow up.

1 Like