Free Will... Again

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

The will refers to an organism’s focus on an objective…all is active, in movement, changing….all is ENERGY.

The will is how this energy, the aggregate energies of an organism, are focused.

So it is not a ‘thing’ a switch…every act is wilful if it is intentional, if it has an objective.

From plant to amoeba, and from fish to mammal.

EVERY single act is an expression of will.

Whether it be conscious or unconscious…for example your heart beat is an act of will….but it requires no conscious awareness.

Simple minds confuse the lucid part of consciousness with the will……no…..this is how they deny free-will, as if their actions, their choices, if they are not lucid are not their own….they are not responsible for them.

They’ve divided consciousness into a Cartesian duality….one represented by the physical the other by the lucid mind - let’s call ti ego.

They will do anything to deny their ego’s culpability in their physical actions…because their consciousness, their ego, was not involved…..

I use an example to demonstrate this…

A Priest, is convinced he’s a pious man, that he abides by his christian ethics, but every time an underage, fully developed, teenage female, is perceived he has an erection….an automatic reaction, showing attraction……

He refuses to take responsibility, because this would put in question his piousness, his ego’s sense of itself.

Self-deceit is what plagues the ego….as a defense mechanism.

Denial of free-will is a defensive position…a way of protecting the ego from as truth it cannot bear..

[MrAuthoritarian]

Freewill is an illusion, human nature is determined and at a fixed rate.

That doesn’t mean we don’t have choices or options, but all of that is dependent on the parameters in which we live in.

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

Free will isn’t an illusion MrAuthoritarian because you exist,because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist.Liars misrepresent reality by claiming that they are a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion).

[futureone]

Now onto the topic of freewill I believe this epic video is a must-watch for all Free-will discussions.

This changed my life

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

Once more….free-will defined how?

How would a will have to be to be free?

How have they imagined the cocnept?

Free, as in Platonic ideal…compared to which the real can never compete?

[MrAuthoritarian]

@Kallikantzaros

There are too many environmental factors that limits our lives to say absolute freedom exists whether it be artificial, societal, biological, or the natural.

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

So, the only freedom is absolute?

What about power, or beauty?

Are they, also, “illusions” if they are not perfect, complete, absolute?

[MrAuthoritarian]

@Kallikantzaros

I would say there isn’t many absolutes concerning humanity.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that power takes on many forms.

No doubt we give our lives meaning and that meaning becomes very important to us, but all that is very inconsequential as far the rest of the universe is concerned. The best we can do in an indifferent universe is care for another.

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

@MrAuthoritarian

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that power takes on many forms.

Ha! Another one.

Tell me….why are males attracted to particular symmetries and proportionalities, and not others?

Why is the 7/10 hip to waist ration in females, and chest to waist ration in males considered attractive?

Is it accidental…cultural…entirely meaningless?

I would say the phrase “beauty is in the eye fo the beholder” is a myth….a modern myth.

Beauty is measurable…and not irrelevant. An ugly woman, for instance, will pass on the manifestations of her ugliness in the form of genetic unfit mutations.

---

---

So, the only kind of freedom you would recognize is Platonic…absolute, perfect ideal freedom. Freedom from causality, right?

Why do you only apply this kind of absolutism to freedom and not to life, for instance?

Why is not life an illusion because it is mortal, imperfect ,and limited?

[MrAuthoritarian]

@Kallikantzaros

Are there just one kind or singular form of beauty? Multiple forms?

Yes, the Greco-Roman masculine ideal of the ultimate male physique, but that wasn’t universal in past history as it seems to be now in the present.

I would argue that there is no freedom away from causality but rather instead causality dominates everything that is conceptualized as being freedom. I say freedom is illusionary because there is only causality instead which is the more active part of our reality I would argue.

[MrAuthoritarian]

@Kallikantzaros

There’s something uniquely post modern that is pervasive all throughout the world nowadays, and that is the belief in perfection where anything less than perfection is deemed entirely worthless. This mindset makes a majority of human beings expendable on the altar of perfectionism whether it is beauty or other things in terms of various mental attitudes.

That which is considered less than perfect is now equated as being less than human.

[MrAuthoritarian]

@Kallikantzaros

Life is the only reality we have, if I were to say life is an illusion that would be akin to say all of reality is an illusion where that’s not very productive at all. That would just lead to epistemological and existential nihilism which in my mind is a trap best to be avoided.

No, I try to take a more productive and pragmatic approach to life.

[Jakob]

@RealUn

This thread is mostly aimed at @promethean75 and his absolute resistance against Free-Will and absolute support for Cosmic Super Magic Spinoza Determinism. But of course all are welcome and encouraged to participate.

How can a person possibly “take responsibility” for something, for an object, over another person (like your own biological child), for an event, etc.? To “take responsibility” for a set of events, for example, is similar to, or the same as, “making a choice”. But how can this action of “taking responsibility” or “making a choice” possibly occur? Inevitably, to the Absolute Determinist, all such notions must be reduced to mere illusions. They are forms of coping of the individual psyche of the person. Human beings, thinkers, any organism with a brain, merely wants to ‘pretend’ to Power. No organism is actually Powerful. No organism is actually capable of Power.

There is NO actual “will power” to the Determinists, except perhaps, only in Self-Delusion.

And this is the basis of power and existence to the Determinists. What humans call “you” or “I” are merely our self-conscious experiences, our consciousnesses “along for the ride”. We can never actually change the course of the ride. We are stuck along a supposed one-course track. And if any organism had the power of foresight or accurate predictability, then it would foresee where all tracks lead. It would be able to see this supposed “Absolute Determinism”. Therein, to Determinists, only an Absolute God would have “Choice” or be able to “take responsibility”, but none else. It’s not a matter of degree. It’s a matter of absolution.

You can either change the whole universe, for all time, or you can do nothing.

So which is it, promy boy?

There are those such as Zeroeth Nature who believe that the world is will to power, and who are also hard determinists who don’t believe in agency.

Challege to Zeroeth Nature viz. Self-Lightening

Interesting! I will try and elaborate my own perspective on this. Firstly, I’m reminded of this passage: “You had to learn to grasp the necessary injustice in every For and Against; to grasp that injustice is inseparable from life, that life itself is determined by perspective and its injustice. Above all you had to see clearly wherever injustice is greatest, where life is developed least, most narrowly, meagerly, rudimentarily, and yet cannot help taking itself as the purpose and measure of t…

I do not think there is a contradiction between determinism and taking responsibility. An organism can be determined by its brain chemistry to adapt his actions to what it perceives is of benefit to someone/something else, thus “taking responsibility” for that other. Whether we think this person actually has an absolute existence as discrete entity is semantics. Prom acts in his own perceived self-interest, whether that self or self interest absolutely exists or not. His perceived self-interest does influence his actions. So the self-interest, be the self merely a perception or an actual thing, is a thing. Like god, whether there is an entity of that sort or not, at the very least exists as a motivator for a lot of peoples actions. So he does exist as an influence. Which, if we go by James S Saints theory of existence=affectance (that which has an efffect) would amount to his proper existence.

@futureone

I don’t know if free-will exists.

Free will is different than responsibility. For instance if a killer robot kills people, the question is not “did the robot have choice”. It is irrelevant if a philosopher determines robot has free-will or not. There are simply actions and then consequences for those actions. The robot would probably be taken to the garage and reprogrammed and given more beta-testing and QA.

Its only in primitive backwards human societies that supposed Christians have some kind of vendetta against prisoners and want prisoners to suffer. Prisons are a place of boredom which causes madness. It is wholly irrational. They are causing madness on dangerous persons and then letting them out on society.

In socialist countries with more prisoner rights they actually have less crime and recidivism, so the hardass arguments all fall apart.

Yes, in Finland a cell is a nice appartment with tv and a view on nature. And there is indeed very little recidivism compared to the US where prisoners, so Ive heard, even if they are quite innocent when they come in, are expert at crime when they come out.

The difference, besides the general economy which is far more hospitable to people of lesser capacities in Finland, is that in Finland the priority is to rehabilitate the convinct, to turn him into a decent and well adapted being, whereas in the US the priority is to punish. As a result the prisoner, if/when released, has strongly diminished chances in life and is more ikely to come back to crime. By the way this is not a question of Socialism vs Christianity. Try prison in Venezuela.

“Man cannot be wicked without being evil, nor evil without being degraded, nor degraded without being punished, nor punished without being guilty. In short … there is nothing so intrinsically plausible as the theory of original sin.”
― Joseph de Maistre

Here’s an interesting observation on American prison.

[RealUn]

@futureone

No the will is not always on. The will is summoned when needed. If you’re will is always on it means you are hyper-vigilant, paranoid or hyper-masculine. You did not ever answer the question if you are ever a passenger in a car.

I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, but meditated it on a bit, don’t dismiss it outright… the human Will is ALWAYS ON. It is your ‘conscious’ experience that is temporal (such as when you sleep). This is why we cannot “pick and choose” to be Morally Responsible, to have Agency, to become Accountable. To be a higher intelligence, you are essentially forced into it, insofar as you are self-conscious.

@futureone

Now onto the self-awareness thing, you are at least correct about this. You are your first person perspective, not your self. Most animals have a first-person consciousness. Now if you know about technology then you know that a “third-person videogame” uses the same camera as a first person game. So when you play a third person videogame you are still looking it through the lens of a first person camera. Everything is in a first person perspective. The only exception would be some kind of Abrahamic supergod that has some kind of magical omniscience camera.

What you call “You” or “I” or “Self” are ALL of the above, both first AND third-person perspective, at the same time. This is the same as ‘Being’ both your finger, and your heart, and your mind. You are ALL of it, especially the parts you are ignorant of.

This is why Self-Consciousness is a very new and recent part of human evolution.

[RealUn]

@MrAuthoritarian

I say freedom is illusionary because there is only causality instead which is the more active part of our reality I would argue.

So your denial of Free-Will is based on this absolute notion of Causality, which you cannot possibly fully know about. You need to presume to know everything, for All Time, to then apply “Causality” to all of it. In other words, you are applying Causes to events, acts, or occurrences, which you must admit to not knowing.

That’s the error of your position, and most other ‘Pre’-Determinists. You are always pre-empting a known cause to all things. It’s akin to reducing all complex phenomena into a superstition. “It’s all Magic.” “It’s all God’s fault.” “It’s all the grey aliens in control.” Or, more simply, “Luck” or “Chance”.

[RealUn]

[Quote from Jakob]
“Free will? I never believed in that, never argued for it. My counter question always is: free from what? In the end, if the world is will to power, to be free the will would have to be free of itself. The whole term is nonsensical, I dont know who invented it. Originally free will just meant the will of someone who isn’t in prison.”

We’ve recently discussed this in the thread, read the responses from last week.

”Freedom From” seems to be, predictably, pre-determinedly, the common position among all Free-Will deniers… because they or you are not “Free From” (Desire) (Oppression) (The State) (God) (Fate) (Chance) (Etc.) then there absolutely is no Free-Will. I have yet to see any Denier argue that a person has a Free-Will TO x, y, or z.

It’s always Pure Nihilism, absolute Negative.

And I plan to make a detailed response as to why this is soon…

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

There’s physical symmetry/proportionality and mental symmetry/proportionality.

The former indicates reproductive potentials - health - the latter indicates psychological potentials, creativity, intelligence, demeanor, charisma, humor.

So, the only form of ‘freedom’ you recognize is freedom FROM causality.

Why don’t you use this same metric for strength or life?

If freedom is an illusion because it isn’t god-like, then why is not strength or life also an illusion?

[abc1231 (Jupiter123)]

A misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) is not life.

[futureone]

I argue that beauty is objective, and its more than just darwinian evolution. I would argue that beauty is a property of neural networks, for example since humans have neural networks, they view tigers as beautiful, even though there is zero evolutionary benefit of gazing at a tiger’s beauty, since tigers are dangerous to humans.

I argue that beauty is a property of neural networks and natural.

I argue that the picture on the left is inherently beautiful, and that all neural nets would consider the one of the left beautiful naturally. In order to swap it any neural net would have to be distorted and modified heavily and artificially. The picture on the left indicates aesthetic coherence, aero, cleanliness, streamlinedness, health, harmony, etc. The picture on the right indicates weakness, sickness, decay etc.

Its like ice-cream trucks or nails on a chalkboard. No neural net is going to say nails on a chalkboard are pleasant. The neural net would have to be artificially heavily distorted to say that nails on a chalkboard are pleasant. Why some neural nets say that ice-cream trucks are unpleasant, and other neural nets say they aren’t annoying, is purely a result of environment and circumstances. The neural net that said ice-cream trucks aren’t annoying, probably only encountered them in small doses, infrequently, while the other neural net encountered them more frequently or at more volume.

[Kallikantzaros (Silenus)]

Physical beauty = attractiveness….= symmetry, indicating resistance to entropy, and proportionality, indicating survival and reproductive fitness.

Mental or psychological beauty = charm, charisma, creativity = organic symmetry indicating psychological, personality, stability, resistance to stress, and proportionality, indicating a reliable demeanor, humour, self-esteem, creativity, pattern recognition (IQ).