Silhouette wrote:
- 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.
Ecmandu replies: This swirls around with the concept called: modal realism
In short, the concept of modal realism is the concept that we cannot conceive of anything, unless it is already actually happening in this or another reality.
In the structure of modal realism, people argue the point I made above, and people also argue against, that imagination is a different value than actuality, a different dimension of sorts.
We can prove modal realism false by simply stating “Everyone ever born is in hell forever”, which is demonstrably (self evidentially) not true.
That’'s a hypothetical reality.
What we can discern from this, is that we have imaginations that aren’t real; they are simply imaginations, that don’t manifest as our objective truths.
I’ll go further with this, with the post I made to peacegirl:
The existence of identity is not about us not being able to travel to the past and change the future, it’s the opposite, we can’t be ourselves if the past is ever changed. Compatabilists except this, just like compatabilists except that you cannot smoke a cigarette if at least one cigarette exists in existence (determinism). Yes, there are aways restrictions… does that invalidate choice? Choice requires restrictions. The argument of restrictions, does not invalidate choice in and of itself. This is not a disproof.
Silhouette wrote:
- 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.
Ecmandu replies:
Just like I can’t smoke a cigarette unless a cigarette exists, I cannot have a thought unless neurons exist. Again, this is a not a disproof of freewill in terms of compatabilism, it is simply a disproof of absolute freewill. Mind always has some form of body, even if it is supernatural, like the fable of jesus after the resurrection… who could walk through walls and walk on water, and not have to eat food or drink water to survive. We can’t conceive of disembodied sentience, just like we can’t fathom a person smoking a cigarette when existence has no cigarettes to smoke. This in and of itself, is not a disproof of freedom to choose between options.
Silhouette wrote:
- 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.
Ecmandu replies:
I already discussed this. If everything is determined, we can prove everything being determined is not falsifiable… since this statement is falsifiable, we can determine that everything is not determined.
What I mean by this is:
If everything is influenced by circumstance outside our control, then we can prove that we have no capacity to prove that what we think is correct or false, regardless or whether it is correct or false. We just think that true is whatever the universe determines us to think is true.
The act of us being able to take a birds eye view and even formulate a disproof in the sense that determinism is not falsifiable, proves that the identity, the will, is falsified by such a simple proof that determinism allows for no falsification (that is a falsification) thus, determinism is false.