Freewill exists

IN both jumps, there is a conscious decision to jump. It is not more free will to jump higher. His example.

But further, the issue is why the consciousness would choose X or Y. And it begs the question to say that jumper B can jump in a wider range of heights. That’s a category error. Does his choosing have more freedom - in the free will sense of not being caused by what went before - then the jumper who can’t jump as high? I see no argument anywhere to support that an olympic jumpers choosing is

less
free
from
past causes.

None.

Category error.

Jimmy can jump between 0 feet and 2 feet. The olypic jumper can jump between 0 and five or whatever it is.

that
has
nothing
to do
with whether each is choosing
freely.

The olympic jumper is not suddenly freer in relation to utter causation because his range is larger. He just has more options to choose from. But his choosing is either caused utterly by what went before or not.

Category error.

Range of options confused with being free from causation.

And note that everyone who chooses will tell us why they chose. Conscious and unconscious desires and external factors will either inevitably lead to the choice or not.

Dominoes or not.

The choices come from the previous state or not.

This has nothing to do with more options.

Or we gained more free will because now we can buy more brands of sneakers.

And we did not get granted more free will because we can choose between more type of sneakers. Cause that is not an ontological difference. It’s just a greater range of choices, that were either utterly determined or not.

A category error.

And note how careful I am being not to say that determinism is the case. I don’t know and frankly I don’t care, because it does not change my day and what I will struggle to do. I am saying that this defense of free will - which note does not explain it in any way, does not show in any way how causation no longer applies - is a category error.

And if somehow you are not choosing based on training, learning, desires (conscious and not conscious)
is it really you who chooses?

If you are choosing based on your values - which are learned and based on desires and temperment - and desires, then it is caused by what you were that moment before the choice. IOW determined.

Unless there is something you guys have not mentioned.

You just keep repeating and celebrating arguments that are category errors.

So what’s the past have to do with the present moment of choosing to practice jumping higher? Value must be attributed before attainment of higher skill or understanding… it’s about utilizing and understanding the system, not escaping it. A determined state in absolute form is not able to willingly utilize it as we have, proof is in society being. And if he chooses not to jump at all? If he chooses to set a goal to jump higher than the other has no effect on if he jumps higher? If he consciously practices such specifically for an targeted effect out of cause? The entire point is /choosing/ cause to have an effect by value, value is what destroys the “confinement” that is trying to be demonstrated.

Yup, listed value and desire in the post above. And these are caused by temperment and experience.

It would be about not being utterly caused by the previous moment, period.

That sentence makes no sense to me.

Then he desired not to do it. And this desire caused that choice. And other desires and experiences caused that choice or the desire to do soemthing instead of jumping.

Oh, jeez. come on. It’s whether that choice to set that goal and not some other is determined.

It might, except values and desires are utterly caused
or
you will demonstrate how they are not.

and if they are not

then they have nothing to do with me and my desires

and what value is would that be?

It’s the same category error and I even talked about values and desires. Now I have had to repeat myself.

You don’t focus on the problem the free will believer has. You are making up other issues.

sil,

by falsifiability i mean in general what hume and popper were on about. metaphysical statements such as ‘everything is caused’ and ‘there is freewill’ aren’t deductive statements, on one hand, and on the other hand, even as inductive statements they aren’t testable. we simply can’t experience either determinism or freewill, and yet we know rationally that each thesis can’t be true.

this problem was fully established by hume - the problem of induction when dealing with causation - and the best attempt to save the subject from radical skepticism was made by kant. he sets out to prove that causality is a necessary feature of knowledge, something that structures experience such that experience can’t happen without it. but then in a last ditch effort to save the transphenomenal soul from the fatalism and immorality that he thought would result from pure determinism, he does the same thing descartes did and becomes a substance dualist.

now i’m of the contention that spinoza actually did create a series of deductive arguments proving causation that weren’t just meaningless tautologies. a logically solid ontology that is as close to a natural science as a philosophical thesis can get. i’m satisfied with it and feel that he resolved the problem quite well.

so did spinoza make freewill falsifiable? yes and no. he never provided any direct, existential experience of causation… never got past hume’s problem… but he did create a kind of intuitive sense via a line of reasoning that sort of indirectly brings one to the conclusion of determinism. he didn’t prove it, mind you, but he revealed how the theory of freewill would be much more sketchy and riddled with conceptual problems. this is why the final verdict must rest on the principle of parsimony. we have to accept the simpler conclusion for lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. this is to say a monistic reductionalism (even a neutral monism) leaves open less questions than a substance dualism, which is the precipice upon which the edifice will be laid to rest by the very best who passed the test of what hume addressed.

The will should be free from what?
From causes? That is not the premise.

Spinoza distinguishes the will which is/sets free from the affects, against the will-less being, which is driven by the affects.

So both are caused beings. One is will-less, the other endowed with will. In terms of its experience, the former is bound, the latter is free.

And what terms are there except experiential ones?
Silhouette would appreciate that!

Eastern religion, particularly the Law of Karma can exemplify cause and effect, in a way which Western tradition can not.
Our actions dispose us to become mindful, as a requirement to understand how it works.
Action , rather then consciousness determines the outcome of becoming aware of the intention of our actions, and through the intentions , the level of mindfulness is revealed.
Such revelation, can change behavior to improve the casual, determination of the act. The freedom to act in accordance with the revelation through mindfulness leads to better casual results in a predetermined reactive way, of accordance to the law.
In this way, the antithesis between free will and determination is avoided by realizing that, it is action which determines understanding and not affect.
This difference is subtle in a way that circumscribed meaning through action.
Right action can be understood as a result of the presence of mindfulness through that action.
In the West we are consumed by the noumenal indica tions of value and meaning, to be able to arrive at that concept.
I only recently started to meditate earnestly, and have come upon this new take within Easter Philosophy.

A few thoughts on current exchanges silhouette,

Your denouncement of the nominal of not referring to the reverent as a category error, completely involves your philosophythat there is no “I”. This is perfectly consistent for you. All I have to say in removing the “I” is instead of “I am speaking”, I can simply say “speaking” in this way, the map and the territory necessarily overlap as equal to each other.

I have a very pointed question for you here:

If the"I" is the ultimate lie, as you claim to have demonstrated, then how exactly are you going to falsify absolute determinism?

The two don’t go together … falsifying determinism and no “I”.

I also wanted to take a moment, in spite of everyone (myself included) using barbs occasionally, for making this thread so fantastic.

KT, I’m with Artimas, comparing conscious desire with unconscious physical phenomena, which is not fully known or predictable BTW, is a bad analogy to start from.

As for the phenomenology, everybody should consider this about “freewill” …will is based on Desire. Desire, in its purest form, is a compulsion of freedom-seeking. For example, an animal is hungry. It is driven by need. It wants to eat. Will-to-power means that ongoing survival is the predicate of desire. Organisms are ‘Caused’ to move, based on simpler desires. However, to want, and to will something (like food), is an evolved ability “to free oneself” from its suffering and ‘negative’ state, or to “save” oneself from death, ultimately. Freedom is linked to the survival instinct. As with humans, once domestication begins, and environments are converted (from Nature to Artifice), the same desires linked to base-survival also evolved, develop, and become sophisticated.

This leads to Art, Athletics, Genius, and all forms of human achievement and excellence which most or all would agree are Noble traits …representing free-will.

So a “freeing of the will” results in Excess, Excellence, and most-if-not-all-other Noble values…

That’s not how free will works. Free will itself was caused, by the inverting of subconsciousness/unconscious and expansion of deterministic trial and error. Experience and knowledge to be understood(consciousness), willingly.

Free will doesn’t need to “escape” cause from a previous moment because you can make a choice in a present moment to detach yourself from a past/future moment to tread a different causal path… you can choose your own fate through understanding cause. A cause and effect is not a confinement because there are an infinity of cause and effect scenarios to learn of and project… it’s free in itself by abundance and our ability to project value onto any of that abundance.

Yeah? And what comes first, the experience or the valuing the experience enough to experience it? Temperament is what I would assume you mean genetics? Well, genetics can be altered by chemical/molecular therapy by neural pathway alteration/expansion and genetics can also be altered by consistency of/by being conscious of environment, phobias can be overridden by facing the fear… bias only forms from lack of diverse consistency and remaining in comfort instead of exploration of new. Note how some say “Acquired taste” with some things, consistency is what brings such if willed. The idea of value can be attached onto imagery with information of it being good or bad from an experience but you may also detach yourself from that valuing of that image/experience as well, to override and acquire taste by ‘non-bias’. Even if an experience comes before value, that is when one can sever attachment to that experience, aka dealing with traumas, etc. Proof is there on psychology.

It’s not so black and white… as he just simply “desires” not to do it… it’s value attribution, not simply desire… it’s a matter of an understanding or lack of, of who, what, why, where, when, how. So tell me then, what’s Buddhism and severing attachment to experience/desire, if we are ‘forced’ to always obey desire. Which desire is illusory and a fleeting satisfaction that creates comfort and fear of loss/pain? Please, do explain.

It’s not about saying it isn’t determined bro!!! How many times do we have to say, it’s about value attributed choice in what is determined that does not have to result from any attachment. That’s the freedom. If you think past creates present then you clearly never did history or tried to not repeat it. Yeah and if you have no attachment to any specific goal you see MANY goals that can be achieved. Attributed VALUE on/of many variables is what is the defining factor. People value things because they /want/ their memories/experiences not because they ‘have’ to choose to be attached to them.

Severing attachment and bias, conscious choice of environment. You become or detach of by the consistency of which you surround yourself with or without. So if I don’t like black licorice are you saying I can’t eat it consistently enough to acquire a taste for it? Explain how people acquire a taste for wine and alcohol then? By their cutting attachment or bias of it being ‘nasty’ or ‘bitter’ they override the senses to achieve the drunk or buzz they ‘Value’ more than the bitter taste. Hmmmm what’s wisdom if not similar to overriding fear of unknown to achieve understanding? Similar to an acquired taste by consistency, is it not? Oh, it isn’t? Then explain the differentiation between us philosophers and general society and why mass populace hasn’t woken up to wisdom? Why isn’t everyone doing this then, hm?

Because cause is not a problem for free will in the first place, so why should I need to focus on it? Different problems for different minds, perhaps hm? Perhaps that issue is merely a problem for you and not for me? Because I have chosen to not let it be a problem by what? Let’s say it again… ‘value’ or detachment. It’s funny how determinists think like this “there’s a beginning and an end” so what the fuck is the middle then hm? Not so black and white. As long as I live, I can alter my own fate, welcome to the power of being in the middle of two absolute bodies/states. Restriction by instinct/limitation and freedom by infinity/sever bias or attachment.

You give too much power to the past or to single aspects of time.

informationphilosopher.com/f … ument.html

I post this link and boldy state: nobody will read it. My theory is that those whom to which i would advise a reading would be delighted to prove me wrong… and would therefore read the link to do so.

“Our will chooses from free alternative possibilities, at least some of which are creative and unpredictable.
The will itself is indeed not “free” (in the sense of uncaused), but we are free.”

Contradiction. “We” are agents of will, if the agent is free then the will is also since both function together simultaneously. If no will, there is no agent, no being human or complex. Proof?

Higher and lower aspects of consciousness or ‘will’ and lack of or more of, complexity. A rock is not an agent of will because instinct alone is not will. It’s an agent of instinct.

Like I stated earlier: if every cause is determined, then you have just disproven the ability to falsify determinism, as all your possible beliefs of what is true or false would be determined, regardless of whether they are true.

In the same vein, randomness is impossible to observe because it’s TOO random to falsify.

It’s something else, and that something else is compatabilism.

I refer you to this post, which peacegirl is avoiding like the plague:

viewtopic.php?p=2729091#p2729091

Silhouette should read that more than anybody else.

After this thread, and my ‘Advanced Freedom’ thread, I’m now more convinced that “Will-itself” is a natural, instinctive, and automatic state of “seeking-freedom” or “towards-freedom”. Thus evolution is merely the extended development of the biological need for ‘freedom’. What do all organisms seek to ‘free’ themselves from, except, “negative” states, feelings, pain, starvation, death? In humanity, what is “most free” except the theological metaphors, toward Immortality, toward godliness, toward divinity? Freedom is linked with hope and desire. Desire is a predicate.

Therefore, Desire cannot be both ‘determined’ and ‘free’ and must be reconciled. This is about as scientific as anybody needs. Silhouette must contend that desire, and will, are “not free” and “must be determined”. But that is merely an excuse. As already asked and stated, determined by whom and/or by what?

My position is that freedom is the predicate, not ‘determinism’.

Silhouette’s whole approach and premise is wrong, backward.

All ‘determining’ factors only come after-the-fact, after “The Will” is set into motion…

silhouette, like other posters on this board, but silhouette moreso, has two motives for going after identity.

The first motive is that I root verifiable objective morality by consent. No identity, no possibility of consent.

That’s motive number one.

Motive number 2 is that: all that’s left, if identity exists, is the corner I backed silhouette into at least 5 pages back. It’s impossible to have a will, let alone a determined or free one, if identity doesn’t exist.

Now, we all know that we can’t tell the truth by lying, which is what silhouette claims is the only way to describe any truth.

As usual, I challenge silhouette to respond to this and my 2 former posts.

There seems to be a range of usages of the word “free”. I fully acknowledge that some are using free in the way you’re describing, but my contention is that whichever way you want to use “free” you can’t ignore the premise of it having to be “from causes” in order to be fully consistent.
Yes, if you ignore causes, you can use “free” like being free from the compulsion to follow impulses, and attributing this to a strong will. You can contrast this with not being free from the compulsion to follow impulses, and attribute this to a lack of will, or a weak will.
But you can’t ignore causes. You are never free from them regardless of how impulsive or rational you are, and since you can’t ignore causes, it’s not really you and you alone to whom you can attribute a strong/weak/lack of will. A “will” is just another thing that’s caused to be either way → not “free” from cause. So no Free Will. But yes, you can ignore the unavoidable premise of freedom needing to be from cause in order to be fully consistent, and then you can comment about wills all you like, it’s true.

My “motive” for going after identity is because it’s so problematic. I have no agenda here, other than to get to truth as best as possible - I don’t care what form it happens to take as long as it’s the best possible. If it could be Free Will, then sure, I have no emotional horse in the race, but it can’t be Free Will for the many reasons I pointed out.

I guess problems with identity does spoil your consent thing, I hadn’t thought about that until you mentioned it - but yeah, I guess that gives you an emotional stake in defending identity. Maybe that’s the core of why you can’t accept my arguments?

And no, problems with the concept of identity is just one thing that gets in the way of Free Will. I listed my main 3 arguments against Free Will on multiple occassions, which haven’t even been attempted by anyone yet, but I’m fine just sticking with the identity thing because that’s enough on its own. But the thing is, even if identity wasn’t a problem - there’d still be my main 3 arguments - so I’m in no corner :slight_smile: I’m out in the fresh air here, and it smells good.

I explained this, more than once I’m pretty sure: the truth and the lying aren’t referring to the same thing - it would only be a contradiction if they were referring to the same thing. A∧¬B, not A∧¬A.

Can you explain the problem you’re laying out here a bit more? Not really sure what the issue is that you’re highlighting.

You said something about 2 former posts that you want me to respond to - do you mean your response to promethean or is there a different one I’ve missed?

Silhouette,

I’m sorry to labor you this way, but I don’t remember an itemized list of your three problems with freewill.

I’d really appreciate this before moving forward.

Freedom is “The Cause” of will…

Therefore, Free-Will

The fewer variables there are the more likely randomness in all its possible variations can be observed - that is where all possible variations can be observed
The simplest example of this is tossing a coin where there are only two variables - heads and tails - so randomness is not impossible to observe like you claim
Binary or even non binary variables - throwing a dice for example - are both possible to observe and entirely random as well

Even where the number of variables is either infinite or unknown randomness can still be observed - just not every single variable
The only time randomness can be falsified is where the same variable keeps repeating itself where there are at least two of them
Although if logically there are at least two of them then it will already be known in advance that randomness is actually possible

It is possible for example to toss a coin an infinite number of times and for it to always land on heads even though there is a binary choice between heads and tails
And also from a random perspective this is no more unusual than any of the other number of infinite possibilities from tossing that coin an infinite number of times

Statistics is decidedly non random.

For example: even with coin tosses, the “randomness” over an infinity of tosses is 50/50, not just 30/70 sometimes, and 65/35 other times for example … it’s a contradiction to define random as non random. These are complex systems, but not random.

Sure dood, they’ve popped up a few times in this thread, mostly in responses to you - I think this was the must succinct formulation of them in a response to you back on page 8:

  1. Possibility is not actuality: the feeling that you could have chosen differently doesn’t make it an actual choice. Only actually choosing makes something actually possible.
  2. The mind-body problem. Not a problem in the sense that it could have a solution, but a problem in the sense that it’s an unavoidable obstacle to any degree of Free Will at all.
  3. How can you be influenced by circumstance, in order to have something to make a decision about, without being influenced by circumstance, in order for your decision to be free from said influence? Free or Will? Not both.