Freewill exists

I made my own thread here because I didn’t want this argument buried in other threads.

Firstly, I’ll start with the operative definition of determinism:

“You couldn’t have chosen any differently”

This is by definition: external

Defined by external forces outside our control.

So that means that freewill can only be defined internally, that it is forces within our control.

If anything is within our control, anything at all, we have freewill.

Now, what happens is that we can only possibly abstract determinism if we perceive an outside agent acting against our will.

Well, what if we have some agents that act internally to our will? That we have freewill?

Can we prove that freewill must exist?


To perceive an external force acting against our will, we abstract the concept of determinism.

We all know determinism is true, it’s self evident.

The question here is whether any measure of freewill is true!

The only way is to define the external by its limit.

We already know the external is determinism.

A total external is then absolute determinism.

What happens at a total external force?

Well we have to use a thought experiment to show the limit.

The thought experiment, completely consistent with the definition of determinism as the external force, is that a being can be able to calculate every reason that it thinks what it thinks and does what it does, externally.

So what happens here?

Since all of those reasons are 100% external to the being, the being has a 0% ability to abstract an internal.

What we know from the limit here, is that a state of absolute determinism is impossible for any possible hypothetical sentient being, which makes it a contradiction for any sentient being to claim absolute determinism.

Since we know that determinism doesn’t work at 100%, we can be 100% positive that something else is also occurring besides absolute determinism.

This something else can only be freewill.

Thus, freewill exists.

Proof through definitions and self evident contradiction.

Consciousness is freewill, an ever expanding will of which one chooses freely to expand possibilities.

Instincts are determinism, the subconscious, we are a step ahead of the subconscious by being conscious. Desire and satisfaction are traps of illusion, fear and pain in disguise. Have to be balanced in choosing.

Do you mean absolute free will? i.e. totally unconditional free will.

There is no such thing as absolute free will.
Whatever will is deemed free, it is always conditional upon human conditions.
Thus what exists is relative free will and there is no absolute free will.

The point is relative free will is, it is not relatively free all the time.
Note the research on subliminal advertisements where a consumer is made to think s/he has to free will to make a choice of what to buy without aware her purchases are influenced by rogue advertisers using subliminal advertisements.

Many a times, people think they are making free choice [and conscious efforts] but they are unaware they are being influenced by their instincts and other neural algorithms within their brain.
A theist may think s/he has a “free choice” to believe in God, but the reality is s/he is not aware s/he is being driven by a “zombie parasite” within the brain to cling to an illusory God.

Btw, the issue of free will is only critical for theists not non-theists. The theists insist humans has free will to commit all their defined evil and sins, and thus absolved God from anything to do with the acts of its subsequent creations.
The fact is God is an illusion and an impossibility, thus human freewill given by God is a non-starter.

Thinking is free.

Do you think everything you think of re sex, hunger, to breathe and the rest of the primal impulses are free thoughts by your conscious thinking?

Yes, you can consciously think freely and create a sense of hunger, but instinctual hunger and its related thoughts of the need to eat is not a conscious thinking activity.


Absolute freewill? No, it’s self evident that this is untrue …

I didn’t put the proof in the op.

If a being knows every reason why it knows what it knows and ALL of those reasons (absolute), are INTERNAL (freewill) then it won’t be able to perceive an other with which to distinguish itself from, this will force non sentience.

I’m a compatibalist.

People use absolute determinism to absolve guilt all the time (I had no choice), freewill rope by definition, do not absolve themselves, you have it backwards.

I am not sure that is ‘the’ operative definition of determinism. I think it is better to focus on the whole. So, nothing else was every going to happen in that moment. All the causes led to that moment being as it was going to always be.

I think actually even your operative definition would not entail this. There is no need to separate out internal and external causes in determinism, though some certainly think of it this way. There is no need to say these are ‘yours’ and those are ‘external’ or ‘not yours’. Just to argue that they all were inevitable.

No, desire stems from the subconscious and instinct, what is free is my ability to control these desires by severing attachment and by controlling my desires and instinctual behavior I can see more possibilities and have more choices open. I get to control if I do eat or I don’t. The body isn’t free, the mind is. No ones talking about choice and no one is talking about the body, we’re talking about the will. Which is separate from the body, thought is free and not restricted. If it is restricted then what’s knowledge? What’s understanding? What’s the point of facing struggle instead of satisfaction to get to a point of understanding knowledge?

I’ve already defeated the determinism argument based on satisfaction and instincts. Consciousness isn’t the same as the subconscious, its observable in nature. A dog doesn’t understand that chocolate is poison to them and so they eat it, that is a lack of free choice or option, no understanding or thought about it other than their falling for desire and their subconscious being in full control, which is determinism. We aren’t only subconscious, we’re conscious, at least if you choose to be, which yes, it is a free choice to make. Satisfaction and instincts are illusory. Temporary = illusion, pain is all the time, which is reality.

I can control my breathing, I can choose not to breathe, what’s meditation? The fact that you can see a determinist system and understand what is the causation, should show you obvious as day that you have a will that is free, to think, consequence from choice is a whole other story. Do any other animals get to debate or understand their own instincts? I don’t think so.

If we are contrasting humans and dogs, humans can even do things like shoot up heroin or smoke when they do have the knowledge that this increases their chances of death. And dogs can learn also that things that seemed desirable are not. They can learn it from us, they can learn it without us.

And the reason I would not eat something poisoness, for exmaple, would be because I desire to live. There’s nothing wrong with desire, per se. Just as there is nothing wrong with thoughts or will, per se, but any of these three can lead one to death and unpleasance.

Up to a point, but then your desire to live will make you breath.

Animals don’t debate - at least it is getting metaphorical to use debate as a description, even with primates and other mammals - but they sure can learn to override instincts and desires.

It sounds also, like your freedom is to negate.

Think about the limit though Karpel!

What is considered the ultimate unfettered freewill?

You are the cause of everything, including even your own thoughts.

What is considered the ultimate determinism?

You are the cause of NOTHING!!!

Hopefully that helps shed light on where I’m coming from here.

Yes but a path of understanding doesn’t stem from desire it’s a path of struggle and enduring pain. The pursuit of understanding knowledge defeats the very argument of determinism and our being trapped by desire.

A dog can be taught, this isn’t free will, this doesn’t mean the dog is free. It imitates, it doesn’t understand, there’s a difference. To have a freedom of will, one must understand all facets, not merely imitate. The Who, why, what, when, where, how, not just “what or why”. As I had stated, subconscious is not the same as consciousness, knowledge/experience isn’t understanding. The two are separate and the will frees itself through seeking understanding, due to an understanding of knowledge, creating more open possibilities/choices.

A dog isn’t going to and cannot at this point in their evolution, understand all of those facets. They’re instinctual, bound by instinct and a deterministic system. They’re not fully conscious, some humans are subconscious too. One can know and not understand, happens all the time, then one makes a mistake and they say “I thought I knew” knowing isn’t the point, understanding is.

My desire isn’t to live, my desire is to fulfill my purpose. My life is temporary as well, what’s that say about life? Physical Illusion. Just a ride of consciousness in a meat bag.

I place value on my fulfilling my purpose, not that I value death less. I have things to do for others, for humanity, before I leave. Death is necessary if no death there would be no appreciation of life, merely a hardwired deterministic system of which one has little to no choice at all and pure misery. This isn’t the case since death is inevitable at this current time for humanity. I’m not afraid of dying, I’ve already accepted everything is temporary. Illusions are temporary, smoke and mirrors are temporary.

Not about negating, its about accepting what is and not getting blinded by the subconscious value attribution.

Both determinism and free will exists, dependent upon understanding value attribution/instincts and self along with shifting perspective. If one believes one is trapped, then they will be, by trapping themselves.

My desire to understand absolutely began in desire. I want to know. I have curiosity desire. I have desired for certain knowledge because I want…and you can fill in the blanks. The newboard will seek out it’s mother’s face out of desire and learns from that face and the voice.

I am not arguing the dog is free, I am saying the dog can override desires which is what you said made us free. And this is not just through imitation. Curiosity, desire, can lead to investigating and noting things and remembering them. I watched my dog learn from one contact with a porcupine to not touch it again. It was a struggle. He really wanted to sniff it again, and he leaned forward, but decided not to. He restrained his desire. This may or may not be free will, but if controlling your desires is freedom, well, he had some freedom.

Knoweldge and experience are not understanding, you say. Could you contrast knowledge and understanding and say where you got this knowledge?

Who understands all facets.

Sorry, they learn and this includes learning on their own to control desires. They also learn socially with us and each other and other species.

I am not arguing dogs are fully conscious, just working with what you are saying freedom comes from.
They are not just instinct.

Well, there’s another desire.

The desire is to find out what’s behind the chain that I would like to figure out the significance of, after the piece of genetic contribution has been made, and find out what’s next after deemed superfluous.

Is there a figuring , once the instinct’s usage is dispensed with , making my sense of indispenceability a delusion?

Whatever my will to freedom represents is all secondary, and that includes what evolved into consciousness.

The animal is a renewal of sorts by displacement by technology.

However the aim of technological progress, mainly consists of AI, the ultimate merit is yet to be disclosed,
and very well could be counter productive, does that infer the determinancy from outside sources, or, has the final intrinsic objective is yet to occur?

If so, it would go along with the theory, of a final ultimate decline , a submergent natural process, where by
such an ultimate reversion into the very nothingness from which it emerged from in the first place.

This would go along with life forms being metaphoric with the pre-organic natural processes: such as those , which have natural cosmological functions- I.e. huge astronomical events observed ex. Post.facto- with modern telegraphy: The Hubble telescope is one such a device, which in all reality is a time machine.

The decline will certainly indicate a forming, or reforming pre-existent limit, an outside source of energy, reducing all phenomenon toward the view, that all is deter ined, ultimately, without any sense of attempting to overcome that limit in some way.

The thing is, attempting to understand this preconceived limit is folly, in order to establish some force to establish measures of distinctive separation between the outer and the inner sanctuary for organic matter , willing to power the idea of be getting an overcoming of the outer with the inner, by any means, synthetic, or otherwise.
This will to power resides in a microcosmic alternate reality, where the transcendence is trying to establish this idea, in a cosmological natural universe(s), whete relative expanse disposes , or, may despose even such a construct.

Since reductions tend to progress, as does technology with quantum increase of relative acceleration, and in all spheres of existence this tends to occur, it puts a new spin on the idea of human freedom , predictability and determination.

The fact of billions of planetary non organic processes, followed by perhaps a few thousand years of conscious development, should verify the above.

The saving grace is Einstein’s comment, that existence appears absolutely continuous, by virtue of the certain need to experience the patterns by which such is defined, gives basis to Nietzsche’s note on a necessary circulous repeatibility.

The circularity has acquired metaphoric content in ALL spheres of life, from Hindu philosophy, to Art and science and philosophy.

Its ground is merely a metaphore, but such can not be ignored in all its manifestation.

So what becomes of choosing between the major conceptual Being, or it’s ghostly existential counterpart?

The answer is in the idea, that IT can never be re-presented in and by the vernacular, as much as it is methodically hard pressed to be revealed.

This cannot be true because your thoughts are not actually unfettered

There are always limitations - psychological - moral - philosophical - logical - social - legal

Therefore absolute free will can be ruled out because you would have to be both omniscient and without morality

I’m not arguing that absolute freewill exists in this or any other thread. I’m arguing that absolute determinism and absolute freewill are impossible.

Then I completely agree as both absolute determinism and absolute free will are impossible

I didn’t say they didn’t learn, I said they can’t understand all facets of everything they experience maybe not anything they experience in terms of a priori, we can understand all facets, that’s what consciousness is, full consciousness of.

What - plastic cup
Why - Conveniency
How - plastic melting and molding.
When - 1936
Who - Leo Hulseman
Where - lake forest, Illinois

There ya go. I never stated a dog or animals do not have will, they obviously have a will but it is not as free as ours, inventions show that. We are far ahead in evolution and if people keep arguing over the will being free we could be much farther in that evolution. Consciousness frees itself by pursuit of understanding.

Well what if I don’t desire anything? What if I don’t care at all if I live or die? Is that too, still based upon desire? Caring? If I die, it only solidifies my immortality. I play the game to help create a future for me to come back to, which is not desirable, what do you think the separation of philosophers and people who do not do philosophy or think but instead believe anything they hear is?
I desire because I /choose/ to desire, not because I am tricked into it. How can I be tricked or forced when I can see the game and how it’s played?

Yes, someone can possess knowledge of something and not have a full understanding, especially oneself. I have the knowledge because I have the experience, I have the experience because of past and history. I have the understanding because I consciously dissected the knowledge of which is myself of which most are too fearful to dissect their own traumas and do not seek to understand themself. The knowledge is from experience becomes an understanding if one consciously invests time into learning all of its facets.

Dogs I already have said could be as conscious as us, I believe we can induce dogs with higher consciousness by trial and error breeding with pains or weaknesses and building their tolerance, which tolerance creates more neural pathways or biological evolution by adaptation.

Knowledge without complete understanding:
What- A plastic cup
Where- ???
Why- ???
When - ???

There are levels of consciousness you see, dogs are subconscious and may possess knowledge but they are not yet at our point of being able to understand the complexity of knowledge. I believe we can induce such, just a matter of morality. Dogs learn from a posteriori, we may learn from a priori now, that’s the difference between our level of consciousness and theirs.

I don’t think anyone can understand all facets of everything they experience. We have a very narrow awareness of all the things our we are experiencing, there are filters on all senses and even our own coginitive states and their contents are happening rapidly and some outside of consciousness.

I don’t know what the bolded section means. If you could reword and give an example.

So they are free, but to a lesser degree. Before it seemed like you were saying they were not free and we are.

But you do desire things. So I don’t need to deal with this hypothetical.

Dogs or animals that are still subconscious can’t learn from a priori, they learn through a posteriori, experience.

We can learn through a priori because we are conscious and only becoming more conscious.

Who says anything about it being hypothetical?
Just because I /choose/ to value staying alive and not committing suicide doesn’t mean I fear dying, it doesn’t mean I don’t place the same value on dying, it doesn’t mean I /have/ to care to live. It simply means I made a /decision/ to care and it isn’t even for my own satisfaction, it’s for humanities evolution really. Determinism is based on instinct and being trapped by instincts, is it not? I am not trapped. Most fear death and so they value life based off of a trap. I value life because I have chosen to.

Dogs aren’t fully conscious. They’re subconscious, they’re more functioning on instincts rather than conscious choice. If dogs were conscious they would be inventing and have time kept track of at the very least. Some humans are subconscious and not very conscious either. Doesn’t mean we’re better than dogs, means we’re merely ahead in evolution, of which some people aren’t really.

Awareness/consciousness is as narrow as one makes it or chooses for it to be. I can understand any experience that happens to me, if I choose to put the time and effort into understanding such.

So what have you learned lately from a priori?

I didn’t say anything about you fearing dying.

You seem to be conflating desire with selfishness. You have a desire to help humanity’s evolution.

Determinists would generally consider instincts one cause amongst many and that nothing is uncaused and everything is inevitable.