Freewill exists

Silhouette,

This is going to be funny!

What if someone builds a machine to change their neurons the exact way that they want their neurons to be and exactly how they want them to fire?

What if they can figure out how to abstract that machine within their own neurons, instead of an external tool, it’s built into biology through greater technology?

Yeah man, this could be our future… seems weird, but also appears likely.

The obvious question here being…

What does that say about determinism?

It’s a zero point argument, the determiner and the determined are the same exact thing: compatibalism!

you’ve got more patience for the po-jama people than i ever had, sil, and i don’t know how you do it.

some people’s hot
some people’s cold
some people’s not very swift to behold
some people do it
some see right through it
some wear po-jamas
if only they knew it

It’s Determinism-ception.

Being determined to want to determine what you want etc.

More like an infinite points argument for Determinism with zero points argument for any degree of Free Will.

If I quit, they’ll just declare victory. I’m stuck, halp mee.

Haha dont worry lad, they declared victory a while ago.

You’re still in a binary state of mind.

Compatabilism is non binary …

You’re still an ape trying to evolve from the jungle, which is why this debate causes so many problems for you.

You’re the dualist, not me.

Project much?

Pardon my taunt but I think that there isn’t even disagreement. It is like a chase of people tied to the same pole, and at each moment they are on opposite sides of the pole, constantly well ahead of each other and gleeful about it but also constantly covering the same ground.

What caused them to be running that way?

Ok promethean stop your summary posting and get at me with what youve really read in the book. I have it handy here as always.
This is a Spinozean logic Im proposing now.

The real question is: is free will something to talk about. Or is it moot.

If the answer is: no, discussing it is bullshit because it isn’t referring to any aspect of reality, then well, we are being idiots here for sure.
If the answer is: yes, discussing it will progress our understanding of a very real thing which we now understand only as the dichotomy “determinism” - “free will”, then it must be the case that the notion of free will has a reality to it. Determinism as well, but no one is contesting that part.

These days even the US president just declares whatever he wants, regardless: victory, success, truth… - these others can do the same, but does it make them right to do so?

I do feel like I’m constantly covering the same ground, you’re right. But I don’t feel like I’m running - more like I already wondered away from other people, found a better view and am trying to get them to come over to check it out. But they’re faced the other way either telling me my view is worse than theirs without even looking, or following my directions somewhere else and telling me my view sucks. There’s definitely a disagreement.

Sure man. I mean, I am explicitly a substance monist (experience), and this debate has been no problem at all. But other than that, why not .

If someone believes in something that can’t exist, it’s worth talking about it with them because it has no reality to it - I reject your “Spinozan logic” because you’re commiting a False Dilemma fallacy.
Additionally, if others believing in something that can’t exist causes the world to work in a less preferable way than if they didn’t believe in it, then it’s worth talking about it with them not just for their sake but yours as well.
You could come at me equating different forms of existence - like Santa “exists”, therefore “Free Will” exists - but I’m talking about existing in the real world, not an imaginary one.

Silhouette,

You called yourself an “experience monist”?

You are aware that people have mutually exclusive experiences don’t you?

The only experience, though divergent in many ways, that everyone can relate to is that their consent is being violated.

Ethics then should all spring forth as solving this.

But, according to you, there’s nothing to solve because experience lacking identity is a monism: nothing to solve, right ? No work to be done, right ?

No Silhouette you are superficial. And Spinoza is the man.
Look at the spaghetti monster. Is it worth debating whether it exists? No.

Not even the fact that the guy was allowed to have it on his passport makes for a topic about whether it really exists. We coolant fill two posts of it. It would tire us out of pure boredom instantly.

I don’t like the way I said things in this post which is now edited to be this sentence.

(Except: its just the words that deceive us at first, make moot and real thought seem like its the same thing.)

If pointing out logical fallacy makes me superficial then fine, I’ll be that. Spinoza is great, your use of his methods are not great: nice Motte and Bailey fallacy - another one for you.

Spaghetti monster ought not to be worth debating (that was the whole intention after all) but when people believe in it and think it is worth debating, it’s worth correcting them - especially if the consequences spill over into everyday life.

Yes. I am. But pluralism in “token” is not the same as dualism in “type”: all concepts you learn in your first year at college/university. Your argument is again invalid.

LOL. This has to be online participation lesson 1 or perhaps 10, but somewhere early on.

You can’t let others potential or actual declaring victory mean anything, or at least can’t let it control your behavior, or then people with joy in repetition and people with unfounded confidence have control of you. (this last, just to tie it in to the issue of freewill, without making it mean either free will or determinism is the case).

But I do understand the feeling.

It has been a hightly effective tool both as a defense mechanism and as a kind of trollish move to combine repeating the same assertions with declarations of victory (a little mind reading is also a great flourish).

But if one let’s it control one’s behavior you literally become a character in someone else’s fantasy.

A determinist would say that then…

the choice of how those neurons would be made based on the desires values temperment (both conscious and unconscious) of the person. and those were caused by the prior temperment experiences desires values of the person just before they got to choose and these…going back to the original meiosis or mitosis or…all the way back to the big bang. And then the qm guys say, other stuff might have happened, but it would be random…and then the determinists say, sure, you indeteminists have a good point, but that ain’t free will and the indeterminists say, yeah, we agree with you on that one.

Spinoza is NEVER dealing with hypotheticals. That may be why he is impossible for you and many people to even approach.

My logic is pretty nifty and definitely Spinozean. If you can’t see that, I bet you didn’t read him actually. In fact I think hardly anyone has really read his arguments completely.

Spinoza isn’t like your standard philosopher where you can just take out a phrase and say “look he said this!”
What he really says is in how he draws one statement from a bunch of previous ones.

Thats in a sense the real positivism. Meaning, no dualism, no zero-sum nonsense, but a building up of a model of the inevitable.

this is not even close to a type-token argument, I was like WTF?

My argument is that mutually exclusive consents invalidate your argument of experiential monism, for example:

One person wants to destroy existence

Another person wants to exist forever.

One is experience driven (you)

The other is anti experience driven

They are anti experienceists.

That’s not a monism.

It’s one thing to say that black and white are both colors, it’s a completely different thing when experience as the argument upon itself is mutually exclusive.

Your not using your philosophic jargon correctly …

I’ll get to Karpel tunnel soon. A bit busy today.

I’m not arguing the absolutes, I’m arguing compatabilism.

If a photon can be used to determine other photons, how does that photon not have an element of choice or will? Sure, it still has to be a photon: that’s determinism … but for a photon to have the quality of changing itself and others, suggests an innate will in spite of the determinism of it needing a body to exersize that will in the first place