Freewill exists

[Artimas]

Karpal,


If the satisfaction is temporary, stemming from a want or desire, then why attach to desires? Is that still logical to want something you may never have or to attach self to something of which is temporary? When ones life is already temporary? No, it isn’t logical, it’s the creation of unnecessary pain and resistance. So when a desire is not fulfilled, is that typically painful to bare? Yes. So then why attach to it from the beginning? If you do not attach yourself to desire, you are free of its pain, you are not controlled by it. It depends on if you attach to the desire or not for it to be a motivator, just because I /want/ a guitar doesn’t mean I am motivated to go get one, that’s the killing of attachment to desires satisfaction, which the satisfaction is illusory due to leading back to pain/fear anyways.

Which is the point I am trying to make.

There is a reason for what we need often being more painful than what we desire. Because a lesson and pain, isn’t based off of illusory satisfaction that disappears as soon as you get it. Attachment to desires do such. One can desire without attachment, this is free will executed. A chosen desire with acceptance of what it is.

I advocate balance by choice, however.

I say we may learn via a priori now, I didn’t state why. The reason why is due to the subconscious and unconscious string of experiencing of an infinite amount, a string of change that we are attached to (but did not directly experience outside of our own individual life)of all that was and all there is to come, yes a dog would avoid it because of instincts, a priori isn’t based off of avoiding something due to an instinct resulting from direct experience, it’s based off of conscious logical deducing, so that’s the first issue with your argument about dogs.

Dogs aren’t as evolved as humans. The dogs and subconscious animals are also attached to this string we are attached to of which leads up to this point now, they are just much farther behind. Tide pods weren’t around when I was a child and I certainly never had anyone tell me not to eat laundry detergent and never would need to, I can logically deduce on my own, not to eat it, it isn’t for eating. Nothing instinctual about it, don’t need observation or experience to understand not to. If I did, I wouldn’t be able to make fun of those who /do/ eat tide pods.

A lot of what I type here, I learned from a priori, of which branches back into a posteriori that I do not have to directly experience, the past experience, which is embedded into our being and genetics, it is merely memory. What do you think instincts are? A warning of a past a posteriori experience, the separation between us and them is that we may logically deduce, which isn’t instinct or based off of such, without being controlled by instincts fully. So to access this past a posteriori memory, through a priori now, are you implying we have to do so through an instinct? Like dogs? Then what’s the point of logic?


I didn’t observe experiments or experience the beginning of the universe personally or directly, to which I may logically/reasonably conclude a change occurred of which started a string of instinctive reactions that grew more complex and still continues, leading up to now. Yet at the same time, I am attached to the string of which was the development and experience of such, which I can consciously think of using a priori and am attached to. We are embedded with an infinity and so now we may understand it through logic. That’s what consciousness is, that is the freedom of will. Dogs are on their way but significantly behind us for now.

We also can learn from a posteriori to a higher extent than dogs, like you stated as well

[Karpel Tunnel]

Karpal,


If the satisfaction is temporary, stemming from a want or desire, then why attach to desires

Again, right now I am arguing that they exist and are included in your motivations, even ones you consider logical or selfless. It's a different discussion about whether one should or should not attach. On that tangent, desires are part of me and who I am. I don't like cutting off parts of myself, as, for example, the Buddhists suggest while using other words.

Is that still logical to want something you may never have or to attach self to something of which is temporary? When ones life is already temporary? No, it isn’t logical, it’s the creation of unnecessary pain and resistance. So when a desire is not fulfilled, is that typically painful to bare? Yes. So then why attach to it from the beginning? If you do not attach yourself to desire, you are free of its pain, you are not controlled by it.

And if you kill yourself the pain is over and you don't have to meditate for lifetimes.

Dogs aren’t as evolved as humans. The dogs and subconscious animals are also attached to this string we are attached to of which leads up to this point now, they are just much farther behind. Tide pods weren’t around when I was a child and I certainly never had anyone tell me not to eat laundry detergent and never would need to, I can logically deduce on my own, not to eat it, it isn’t for eating. Nothing instinctual about it, don’t need observation or experience to understand not to. If I did, I wouldn’t be able to make fun of those who /do/ eat tide pods.

I don't eat detergent because of all sort of cues I have gotten from adults about what is food and what is not coupled with the fact that it does not attract any desire to eat it. Experience plus instinct.

What did you learn in the last couple of days from a priori?

[Artimas]

Karpal,


If the satisfaction is temporary, stemming from a want or desire, then why attach to desires

Again, right now I am arguing that they exist and are included in your motivations, even ones you consider logical or selfless. It's a different discussion about whether one should or should not attach. On that tangent, desires are part of me and who I am. I don't like cutting off parts of myself, as, for example, the Buddhists suggest while using other words.

Is that still logical to want something you may never have or to attach self to something of which is temporary? When ones life is already temporary? No, it isn’t logical, it’s the creation of unnecessary pain and resistance. So when a desire is not fulfilled, is that typically painful to bare? Yes. So then why attach to it from the beginning? If you do not attach yourself to desire, you are free of its pain, you are not controlled by it.

And if you kill yourself the pain is over and you don't have to meditate for lifetimes.

Dogs aren’t as evolved as humans. The dogs and subconscious animals are also attached to this string we are attached to of which leads up to this point now, they are just much farther behind. Tide pods weren’t around when I was a child and I certainly never had anyone tell me not to eat laundry detergent and never would need to, I can logically deduce on my own, not to eat it, it isn’t for eating. Nothing instinctual about it, don’t need observation or experience to understand not to. If I did, I wouldn’t be able to make fun of those who /do/ eat tide pods.

I don't eat detergent because of all sort of cues I have gotten from adults about what is food and what is not coupled with the fact that it does not attract any desire to eat it. Experience plus instinct.

What did you learn in the last couple of days from a priori?

And I am arguing that one is more so and mainly bound by the boundaries one creates for themself.

A desire is not something apart of you, a need is. There’s a difference.
Why do you think the truth is bitter, why do you think that most people choose their desires over the truth?

A desire is illusory due to the fact that satisfaction may not be met, a need is not based off of satisfaction but instead what one may need to survive. There is no attribution of value, it’s objective. A desire is subjective value attribution. My wanting to live is my choice of value attribution, it doesn’t mean I have to choose or desire it. That’s not a hypothetical, that’s reality. Desires also change based off of information which is also another proof of them being temporary and illusions of ego.
I never argued that illusions or traps didn’t exist. That’s your own misconception of what I have stated. The fact is, desires are from choice, of a will that is free and only becomes more free through pursuit of understanding, which is painful and opposite of what most desire, which is satisfaction.


We recycle, who knows into what or where to. There may not be pain, that isn’t up to a single identity/ego. If in the state of nothing, no pain exists, no time and no change. I enjoy meditating, I enjoy life because I have chosen to value it for what it is truly. That’s my choice.


You don’t eat detergent because you have logically deduced that it is bad and shouldn’t be eaten, not that you rely on empirical evidence or a direct consequence of experiencing it.

I have already given an example of what I have learned from a priori.

A posteriori happened first, yes, I do not deny such, what I deny is being directly involved with a lot of that a posteriori/experiences,,as my identity of which I appear as right now, in the beginning of the universe, yet we have deduced conclusions of such beginning. How else do we invent things and have ideas if not logical deduction while using a posteriori to solidify such? You can understand something through logical deduction before you project it into reality, inventions are a proof of that.

An example of a priori or logical/reasonable deduction - all bachelors remain unmarried.

[Karpel Tunnel]

And I am arguing that one is more so and mainly bound by the boundaries one creates for themself.

A desire is not something apart of you, a need is. There’s a difference.
Why do you think the truth is bitter, why do you think that most people choose their desires over the truth?

I don't need to choose between my desires and the truth. Amongst other things, I desire the truth or truths. Not always, but often.

A desire is illusory due to the fact that satisfaction may not be met, a need is not based off of satisfaction but instead what one may need to survive. There is no attribution of value, it’s objective.

It is a valuing life. A desire to experince, have, connect, see others, live. I don't know if it's better to be a live, but I desire it.

A desire is subjective value attribution. My wanting to live is my choice of value attribution, it doesn’t mean I have to choose or desire it. That’s not a hypothetical, that’s reality. Desires also change based off of information which is also another proof of them being temporary and illusions of ego.
I never argued that illusions or traps didn’t exist. That’s your own misconception of what I have stated. The fact is, desires are from choice, of a will that is free and only becomes more free through pursuit of understanding, which is painful and opposite of what most desire, which is satisfaction.

I desire both. My desires to know things, to be whole, to accept myself, all require facing painful things.

You don’t eat detergent because you have logically deduced that it is bad and shouldn’t be eaten, not that you rely on empirical evidence or a direct consequence of experiencing it.

I was told early on about not eating a variety of things. There is also deduction involved, yes. It's a combination of experience and deduction.

I have already given an example of what I have learned from a priori.

A posteriori happened first, yes, I do not deny such, what I deny is being directly involved with a lot of that a posteriori/experiences,,as my identity of which I appear as right now, in the beginning of the universe, yet we have deduced conclusions of such beginning. How else do we invent things and have ideas if not logical deduction while using a posteriori to solidify such? You can understand something through logical deduction before you project it into reality, inventions are a proof of that.

And a proof of one of the many positive effects of desire. And inventions often require desire, experience and sure deduction. And failed deduction often until one deduces right or gets lucky.

An example of a priori or logical/reasonable deduction - all bachelors remain unmarried.

I am not sure that's a good deduction, it's a floppy sentence. But it's also nothing that gives me pride over dogs. You can't invent something just with a priori knowledge.

[Silhouette]

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.

There may very well be something else that is also occurring besides absolute Determinism: randomness.

Consider, for example, the weather.
Weather exemplifies a fundamental tenet to Chaos Theory: a sensitivity to initial conditions. The more accurately that you can ascertain the initial conditions of a weather system, the more precisely you can predict it, but the slightest error can throw off such a prediction exponentially, and especially so the further into the future that you try to predict. At some point, precision reaches the level where quantum effects come into play, and it may be the case that these effects end up dictating the weather in the same way as Schrodinger ridiculed with his cat example. It may be the case that Determinism breaks down at scales where the effects come into play, or it may not. If Quantum Indeterminacy turns out to hold, then randomness may become a factor in certain ways to certain degrees alongside the Determinism that very clearly emerges in spite of it outside of the quantum realm (think the "red spot" of Jupiter, or the Lorenz attractor as examples of order emerging from chaos).

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.

This argument could be clearer.

1) Are you saying that calculating reasons requires "an internal", absolute Determinism has all reasons as external, therefore it contradicts the requirement of "an internal" and Determinism cannot be absolute.
2) And from this you're concluding that with less than absolute Determinism, a non-zero degree of non-deterministic reasoning is being made, which must be Free Will?

I have challenged "2" in opening this post, I think the dichotomy of either Determinism or Free Will is a false one, if there's anything other than Determinism then it's just Indeterminacy, which is no reason and nobody's will - nevermind a free one.
"1" needs expanding and explaining. What is "an internal"? Where exactly does it border the external and why? What is the connection between the internal and external such that they can interact? Is this calling upon Dualism and the mind-body problem? The subject/object split?
Deterministic causation operates throughout reality, including "the self" - a nebulous concept if there ever was one. Therefore I don't think any distinction between any "internal" and "external" is necessary at all. So even though your logic sounds shaky due to the lack of clarity, I don't think the premises get off the ground in the first place anyway.

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.

Hard Determinism doesn't absolve guilt, it ties everyone to their actions by definition: they literally determine their actions to happen. But they were also determined to determine them to happen, and so guilt is revealed to not be solely that of the determiner of said actions. And it's not therefore all the fault of what determined them to determine their actions and not theirs at all - that is far too black and white. Guilt is not removed just because it's spread out - to claim so that would be to commit the formal fallacy of "affirming a disjunct".

Further, Determinism forces a much needed humility on people who aren't solely responsible for any good that they determine to occur. Just like with guilt, merit is spread to what determined you to determine any good too. It is a much needed cure for the "fundamental attribution error".

Basically Determinism does everything that Free Will does, but moreso and better. It provides context rather than focusing on the individual. If anything it emphasises consequences, making everyone more aware of what their decisions might result in, encouraging moral behaviour even more than Free Will does.

[Ecmandu]

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.

There may very well be something else that is also occurring besides absolute Determinism: randomness.

Consider, for example, the weather.
Weather exemplifies a fundamental tenet to Chaos Theory: a sensitivity to initial conditions. The more accurately that you can ascertain the initial conditions of a weather system, the more precisely you can predict it, but the slightest error can throw off such a prediction exponentially, and especially so the further into the future that you try to predict. At some point, precision reaches the level where quantum effects come into play, and it may be the case that these effects end up dictating the weather in the same way as Schrodinger ridiculed with his cat example. It may be the case that Determinism breaks down at scales where the effects come into play, or it may not. If Quantum Indeterminacy turns out to hold, then randomness may become a factor in certain ways to certain degrees alongside the Determinism that very clearly emerges in spite of it outside of the quantum realm (think the "red spot" of Jupiter, or the Lorenz attractor as examples of order emerging from chaos).

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.

This argument could be clearer.

1) Are you saying that calculating reasons requires "an internal", absolute Determinism has all reasons as external, therefore it contradicts the requirement of "an internal" and Determinism cannot be absolute.
2) And from this you're concluding that with less than absolute Determinism, a non-zero degree of non-deterministic reasoning is being made, which must be Free Will?

I have challenged "2" in opening this post, I think the dichotomy of either Determinism or Free Will is a false one, if there's anything other than Determinism then it's just Indeterminacy, which is no reason and nobody's will - nevermind a free one.
"1" needs expanding and explaining. What is "an internal"? Where exactly does it border the external and why? What is the connection between the internal and external such that they can interact? Is this calling upon Dualism and the mind-body problem? The subject/object split?
Deterministic causation operates throughout reality, including "the self" - a nebulous concept if there ever was one. Therefore I don't think any distinction between any "internal" and "external" is necessary at all. So even though your logic sounds shaky due to the lack of clarity, I don't think the premises get off the ground in the first place anyway.

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.

Hard Determinism doesn't absolve guilt, it ties everyone to their actions by definition: they literally determine their actions to happen. But they were also determined to determine them to happen, and so guilt is revealed to not be solely that of the determiner of said actions. And it's not therefore all the fault of what determined them to determine their actions and not theirs at all - that is far too black and white. Guilt is not removed just because it's spread out - to claim so that would be to commit the formal fallacy of "affirming a disjunct".

Further, Determinism forces a much needed humility on people who aren't solely responsible for any good that they determine to occur. Just like with guilt, merit is spread to what determined you to determine any good too. It is a much needed cure for the "fundamental attribution error".

Basically Determinism does everything that Free Will does, but moreso and better. It provides context rather than focusing on the individual. If anything it emphasises consequences, making everyone more aware of what their decisions might result in, encouraging moral behaviour even more than Free Will does.

I'll leave the first part alone and only state that you're contradicting yourself from previous systems made... that what you're defining at the end as determinism, you've otherwise defined as "soft determinism" or compatibalism in another post.

Can you clarify that?

In saying all that, even as a counter argument, you are the only person so far on these boards that discussed this line of thought intelligently. You can certainly expect a reply. I'm too busy for that right now.

You said that you have a very high iq, so, you can probably infer this, compatibalism is not a freewill argument, it is an argument which states that for every choice there are restrictions.

So, you're "determinism better than freewill" argument, is a straw man to this regard.

[Artimas]

And I am arguing that one is more so and mainly bound by the boundaries one creates for themself.

A desire is not something apart of you, a need is. There’s a difference.
Why do you think the truth is bitter, why do you think that most people choose their desires over the truth?

I don't need to choose between my desires and the truth. Amongst other things, I desire the truth or truths. Not always, but often.

A desire is illusory due to the fact that satisfaction may not be met, a need is not based off of satisfaction but instead what one may need to survive. There is no attribution of value, it’s objective.

It is a valuing life. A desire to experince, have, connect, see others, live. I don't know if it's better to be a live, but I desire it.

A desire is subjective value attribution. My wanting to live is my choice of value attribution, it doesn’t mean I have to choose or desire it. That’s not a hypothetical, that’s reality. Desires also change based off of information which is also another proof of them being temporary and illusions of ego.
I never argued that illusions or traps didn’t exist. That’s your own misconception of what I have stated. The fact is, desires are from choice, of a will that is free and only becomes more free through pursuit of understanding, which is painful and opposite of what most desire, which is satisfaction.

I desire both. My desires to know things, to be whole, to accept myself, all require facing painful things.

You don’t eat detergent because you have logically deduced that it is bad and shouldn’t be eaten, not that you rely on empirical evidence or a direct consequence of experiencing it.

I was told early on about not eating a variety of things. There is also deduction involved, yes. It's a combination of experience and deduction.

I have already given an example of what I have learned from a priori.

A posteriori happened first, yes, I do not deny such, what I deny is being directly involved with a lot of that a posteriori/experiences,,as my identity of which I appear as right now, in the beginning of the universe, yet we have deduced conclusions of such beginning. How else do we invent things and have ideas if not logical deduction while using a posteriori to solidify such? You can understand something through logical deduction before you project it into reality, inventions are a proof of that.

And a proof of one of the many positive effects of desire. And inventions often require desire, experience and sure deduction. And failed deduction often until one deduces right or gets lucky.

An example of a priori or logical/reasonable deduction - all bachelors remain unmarried.

I am not sure that's a good deduction, it's a floppy sentence. But it's also nothing that gives me pride over dogs. You can't invent something just with a priori knowledge.

You do need to choose what you do desire consciously though, to avoid traps. If one wants truth, then that is not a pursuit of satisfaction but instead a pursuit of struggle and learning from struggles.

Desires if not observed for what they are or can be, become traps of temporary satisfaction.


Yes and it is a choice one may make from a free will, a level of consciousness of which is determined by the individual themself.
.

And you are free in this choice because you can also choose the opposite and most do, which can lead to becoming stuck in traps, a narrowed view of the big picture.


Agree, it is a combination of both things, but we don’t have to experience things directly always to form a logical conclusion, I feel dogs at their current level of consciousness are more instinctive and shaped by a posteriori than the ability to use and function off of forming conclusions from logic or the mind alone, which is the first or middle step in inventing something.

Trial and error, desire if attributed in a balanced method is not a trap, it is when one becomes attached to desire that they may become entrapped and the will is less free I feel, one can be trapped by their desire to invent as well, have to severe attachment.

No you can’t, you’re right, but it is a crucial step into inventing of which I do not think or know that dogs possess such capability, yet. I think we can induce consciousness upon other animals however. It’s just a matter of time and confined experimentation of which is a question of morals.

The deduction I provided was the example given with the definition of a priori, it’s easy to conclude such, it doesn’t seem like a priori or a good example due to how simple of an example it is, I’d think.

[promethean75]

There may very well be something else that is also occurring besides absolute Determinism: randomness.

that's another confused idea usually used in support of the freewill argument. we expect that because we may not perceive a pattern, repetition, ordered sequence... or are not able to predict with certainty some future event, that therefore there is no causation at work. and some credibility is lended to this assumption because causation is an inference - not knowledge we gain a posteriori - and so isn't empirical or inductive. we can never experience causation, so it's easy for us to fall into the irrational reasoning that it doesn't exist. but despite this, the burden of proof is actually reversed here; it is up to us to prove that because we perceive no pattern, repetition or ordered sequence, we are not merely faced only with a problem of observation, but something more. the first impression should be that this really is only a problem of observation, and that causation is still working. then, after a little deductive reasoning, we would logically conclude that causation must exist.

consider this; a thing cannot be compelled to change or move without something external acting upon it. not knowing in advance how it might change/move in no way proves that there is nothing causing it to do so. all this proves is that these circumstances cannot be predicted in advance.

now if we say that a thing can compel itself to change/move, and all things consist of composite parts, we have to ask which part of the thing initiated the change. if we have a particle that begins to decay, do we say that each individual electron in the field of radiation that results, simultaneously compelled itself to move? what made the particle that was just moments ago not yet in decay, coordinate all of it's parts to act as they did? the answer is, there was no singular 'thing' to compel itself to change/move... but just a collection or divisable parts that have formed a temporary unity. the unity - the 'thing' - does not cause itself to remain as a unity, nor does it cause itself to cease being that unity. it remains as it is until something external to it in space/time affects it through an exchange of forces. and if this holds true for all unities, then no 'thing' can be a cause for change/motion in anything else. causation is a mystery force that can't be observed (e.g., we don't actually see gravity or electromagnetic force, etc.), so we must infer that it exists because there is no other theoretical alternative to explain the characteristic movement and activity of material substances.

what most here are failing to understand is that when describing freewill, something is assumed; that there is a 'self', and that this self is, itself, one of these mysterious forces that acts on things... makes things change/move. but this can't be true because like anything else, the 'self' is just a temporary unity of composite parts, each of which have no causal affect on anything. the body, just like everything else, is subject to the same causation.

so if i say 'I' decided to stand up, what actually happened? where is this 'I', and what kind of force is it? does the 'I' suddenly come into existence after the neuron fires, or does it exist before? does my abstract concept 'me' cause the neuron to fire, or does the firing neuron result in me having the abstract concept 'me'?

there are basically two options here. cartesian dualism or substance monism. everyone here (the freewillists) is operating under the precepts of cartesian dualism, whether they know it or not. all this talk about randomness and unpredictability and chaos is neither here nor there. the question is not how things change/move, or if they change/move, but why they change/move. what things do, and how they do it - their forming patterns, sequences, ordered repetitions, etc., - is not the reason for their doing so. you guys are asking the wrong questions... way the fuck out in left-field somewhere.

[Artimas]

There may very well be something else that is also occurring besides absolute Determinism: randomness.

that's another confused idea usually used in support of the freewill argument. we expect that because we may not perceive a pattern, repetition, ordered sequence... or are not able to predict with certainty some future event, that therefore there is no causation at work. and some credibility is lended to this assumption because causation is an inference - not knowledge we gain a posteriori - and so isn't empirical or inductive. we can never experience causation, so it's easy for us to fall into the irrational reasoning that it doesn't exist. but despite this, the burden of proof is actually reversed here; it is up to us to prove that because we perceive no pattern, repetition or ordered sequence, we are not merely faced only with a problem of observation, but something more. the first impression should be that this really is only a problem of observation, and that causation is still working. then, after a little deductive reasoning, we would logically conclude that causation must exist.

consider this; a thing cannot be compelled to change or move without something external acting upon it. not knowing in advance how it might change/move in no way proves that there is nothing causing it to do so. all this proves is that these circumstances cannot be predicted in advance.

now if we say that a thing can compel itself to change/move, and all things consist of composite parts, we have to ask which part of the thing initiated the change. if we have a particle that begins to decay, do we say that each individual electron in the field of radiation that results, simultaneously compelled itself to move? what made the particle that was just moments ago not yet in decay, coordinate all of it's parts to act as they did? the answer is, there was no singular 'thing' to compel itself to change/move... but just a collection or divisable parts that have formed a temporary unity. the unity - the 'thing' - does not cause itself to remain as a unity, nor does it cause itself to cease being that unity. it remains as it is until something external to it in space/time affects it through an exchange of forces. and if this holds true for all unities, then no 'thing' can be a cause for change/motion in anything else. causation is a mystery force that can't be observed (e.g., we don't actually see gravity or electromagnetic force, etc.), so we must infer that it exists because there is no other theoretical alternative to explain the characteristic movement and activity of material substances.

what most here are failing to understand is that when describing freewill, something is assumed; that there is a 'self', and that this self is, itself, one of these mysterious forces that acts on things... makes things change/move. but this can't be true because like anything else, the 'self' is just a temporary unity of composite parts, each of which have no causal affect on anything. the body, just like everything else, is subject to the same causation.

so if i say 'I' decided to stand up, what actually happened? where is this 'I', and what kind of force is it? does the 'I' suddenly come into existence after the neuron fires, or does it exist before? does my abstract concept 'me' cause the neuron to fire, or does the firing neuron result in me having the abstract concept 'me'?

there are basically two options here. cartesian dualism or substance monism. everyone here (the freewillists) is operating under the precepts of cartesian dualism, whether they know it or not. all this talk about randomness and unpredictability and chaos is neither here nor there. the question is not how things change/move, or if they change/move, but why they change/move. what things do, and how they do it - their forming patterns, sequences, ordered repetitions, etc., - is not the reason for their doing so. you guys are asking the wrong questions... way the fuck out in left-field somewhere.

Or maybe you’re way the fuck in right field.


Sure there is and there has been for a long time, it’s called consciousness. Everything is instinctive due to change. Even the unconscious aspects, are still instinctive, appearing sessile or not. A participle only stops what it is doing because it is both nothing and everything. It is literally like rewinding time which time is change all the way back to it’s beginning and then asking “why are we at nothing, what is it? Why isn’t the particle moving or doing anything?” I don’t know, why don’t you try pushing pause on a film and tell me why there isn’t any moving in your observing it. The beginning has to be nothing so something can be anything/everything. It isn’t a unity in the way of which you may be implying it is, it’s a string of unconscious and subconscious or instinctive changes/experiences of which evolved into complex overlapping states of being. Usually when something comes from nothing, it can be turned back into nothing or consciously paused and does not act as something but appears as nothing.

Unconscious > subconscious > conscious

Don’t say there has been no alternatives to explain the movement and what not when there has been answers sitting around forever.


You think that there is no self? Do you not have any ideas that come to your own mind? Creativity?
The self is a layer of the subconscious/unconscious mind and it is immortal, it has no discretion and has no attachment to ego/identity or individuality other than when existing in dualistic/trinity form with such. The self isn’t temporary, the ego is. The self is the string of which the ego is attached to and the body the receiver of such. Do you deny being attached to a string of instinctive change that is an infinity, that became complex and conscious of itself?


So are you saying we are not more complex than a single neuron being fired in comparison? Are you saying mankind understands the full mind and the full extent of consciousness? I am more than a neuron and so are you, so are trees. Cells exist sure, observable sure, does it mean we, a collection of multiple functions and trillions of cells changing, is explained by how a single neuron functions? No, I don’t think so, I think we are more complex than the single observable or collection of neurons and how they react, is a neuron conscious of itself and it’s instinctual nature?

You attribute value to standing up for why you would or wouldn’t do such, which requires conscious decision, the consciousness couldn’t exist without the subconscious/unconscious evolving each other, which the immortal self is buried in and one has to be choosing to be conscious of.
.

Then how did we get here? Even the unconscious aspects have instincts and are technically “alive”. Everything moves already because everything vibrates, does it not?

Obviously not, because something came from nothing which nothing is in itself, something solo, so what was external to it then? So then tell me, what compelled nothing? Something, which is instinctual and also not external to nothing, which is why your physics particles display as nothing and doing nothing when consciously observed, because we are still attached to what we may observe and can revert back to, which is nothing.


What compelled itself, which was nothing, to move? Unconscious instinct and objective value. Which evolved and became more complex in a series of ever changing and overlapping contrasts.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You do need to choose what you do desire consciously though, to avoid traps. If one wants truth, then that is not a pursuit of satisfaction but instead a pursuit of struggle and learning from struggles.

I would choose to avoid traps based on desire. I would choose what I do desire based on what I like. But the fact is I find myself with certain proclivities. I can accept many of these, or I can judge myself and needed to be cleaned out.

Desires if not observed for what they are or can be, become traps of temporary satisfaction.

Perhaps the biggest trap is thinking that satisfaction should be permanent.

Trial and error, desire if attributed in a balanced method is not a trap, it is when one becomes attached to desire that they may become entrapped and the will is less free I feel, one can be trapped by their desire to invent as well, have to severe attachment.

I can't see how denying one's desires makes one more free.

The deduction I provided was the example given with the definition of a priori, it’s easy to conclude such, it doesn’t seem like a priori or a good example due to how simple of an example it is, I’d think.

That's fine. I just wonder about what recent specific examples of apriori conclusions you've reached show a greatness in comparison with dogs.

[Prismatic567]

What you missed out is this;

There are two aspects of thinking and 'will' that run from different paths;

1. Subconscious and instinctual impulses that trigger thoughts which leads to one thinking about the impulses, e.g. hunger. Example, when your stomach is empty, your system will trigger the hunger system which trigger you in thinking you are hungry. In this case, you cannot think freely because the thought of hunger has already arisen in your conscious thinking mind.
Of course you can think about these thoughts [thinking] subsequently, that is conscious thinking.

2. Conscious thinking.

the action of using one's mind to produce thoughts
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thinking

This is where you think of eating. Example when you see someone eating something which trigger you to think consciously of eating and that you also want to eat.
In this case, you can think freely, i.e. in future you can choose not to think of hunger and eating when you see others are eating. This is where impulse control within a person who is fast is doing.

So there are two types of thinking based on the sources of thoughts. You are mixing up this two concepts all the time, thus the confusion.

Yes, I had said we have instincts already, I understand we do.

But we do not have to play into them. That is the point of being conscious.

Consciousness frees itself by understanding the aspects of the subconscious mind.

That’s generally how instincts work yeah, we have a stomach, we didn’t eat, it growls to let us know, we can choose to listen or we can choose to ignore it. It’s a simple warning with simple answers in response. This doesn’t mean the will is not free.

What does the stomach growling have to do with having a mind that’s free? The body is instinctual, the mind doesn’t have to be, the contrast shows in reality of who is controlled by instincts and who isn’t. What’s the point of wisdom or psychology if not to control your own instincts?

Determinism exists, didn’t state it didn’t but it doesn’t negate a free will or free thought. Just because my stomach growls does not mean I automatically have to think of hunger, it’s a good warning though, I could be thinking of a million different things however and I can make a conscious decision on what I wish to do, which has effects I can estimate and predict the outcome. So then how can one be trapped in instinct or by cause/effect if you already know the end game?

It’s like a man seeing a bear trap, his curious instinctual nature taunts him into wanting to understand it, he can choose to step in it or not, he steps in it and then says he has no free will because of the effects and his nature being curiosity, even when he had the option to not.
We are only as bound so far as we let ourselves become bound. The subconscious mind is undeniable, I argue for the subconscious, not against it, I however do argue for multiple levels of consciousness and not solely relying on the subconscious to blame.

What I have noticed is that most seem to confuse the body and choice with the freedom of will, the two are not to be conflated. It is obvious the body communicates, the will does not have to listen. Hence, Evolutions trial and error.

We used to be purely instinctual and not conscious but here we are now, conscious. There are levels. It is due to the subconscious of which we experienced a string of infinity that granted us consciousness, complex development of sensory organs due to trial and error and preservation.
The will is free now because we worked for it in the past and some choose to throw their will away, it’s laughable. Those who chain themselves, might as well return back to the dirt.

The World as Will and Representation is the central work of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World ... esentation

I believe your idea of 'will' is moving toward that of Schopenhauer, who believe there is 'will' that is independent and work through the conscious human being.

Many argued this idea of 'will' is associated with God.

My argument is there is no absolute will that is absolutely free.
Every aspect of will that is associated with humans are subjected to the human conditions.

[surreptitious75]

it is when one becomes attached to desire that they may become entrapped and the will is less free I feel

It is very hard not to become entrapped by desire given that it is what you want and therefore appears entirely natural
Avoiding it completely is not really possible but controlling or reducing it through self denial or willpower is achievable

[surreptitious75]

Desires if not observed for what they are or can be become traps of temporary satisfaction

Instant gratification is ultimately self defeating as it requires more effort over time to achieve the same results
Contentment is therefore a more practical goal as it requires less effort and sustains itself over longer time too

[surreptitious75]

My argument is there is no absolute will that is absolutely free
Every aspect of will that is associated with humans are subjected to the human conditions

If there was such a thing as absolute will we would be in total control of our existence where it didnt impact upon the will of others
This is of course not possible and is why religion exists whereby we create the illusion of absolute from within our own limited minds

[Artimas]

You do need to choose what you do desire consciously though, to avoid traps. If one wants truth, then that is not a pursuit of satisfaction but instead a pursuit of struggle and learning from struggles.

I would choose to avoid traps based on desire. I would choose what I do desire based on what I like. But the fact is I find myself with certain proclivities. I can accept many of these, or I can judge myself and needed to be cleaned out.

Desires if not observed for what they are or can be, become traps of temporary satisfaction.

Perhaps the biggest trap is thinking that satisfaction should be permanent.

Trial and error, desire if attributed in a balanced method is not a trap, it is when one becomes attached to desire that they may become entrapped and the will is less free I feel, one can be trapped by their desire to invent as well, have to severe attachment.

I can't see how denying one's desires makes one more free.

The deduction I provided was the example given with the definition of a priori, it’s easy to conclude such, it doesn’t seem like a priori or a good example due to how simple of an example it is, I’d think.

That's fine. I just wonder about what recent specific examples of apriori conclusions you've reached show a greatness in comparison with dogs.

Yes because you already went through pain and understand certain things, from a point of no understanding though, one usually fears to tread the path of pain and learning and this is what we see in society in the mass populace, because truth is not disguised as satisfactory, responsibility from power takes work and may not always be pleasurable. So it depends upon your values really. Desires exist but may lead to traps and the desire is not guaranteed so may be temporary itself as well. I too, desire to understand for the sake of wisdom but as you surely know, everything comes at a price. Attachment to desire is what creates the unnecessary traps.

It isn’t so much as denying desires because to deny all desires is an extreme of having no bias as we discussed on ecc’s other thread, the Buddha made that mistake but he also was teaching a long time ago with less of a technological or modern world, less people too. It is being conscious of your desires fully, severing attachment of the expected satisfaction, that’s where the extra pain comes from. Just don’t expect anything really. Our needs also shouldn’t be confused with our desires as well, I think this could help us with politics drastically as well if we view it this way. I would argue that our necessities/needs change based on the times/era and the context of which we live in society, based on what we are taught in schools or the skill sets given to us. One man’s internet may not be a necessity to the man who survives in the wild but it is a necessity to the tech savvy individual because his life has given him that specific skill set to survive in a technologically contextual society.

Well some recent a priori thoughts based off of reasonable deduction, could be my thread “impossibility of a possibility, why”, the conclusion that we are attached to a string as well, something coming from nothing, etc.. that’s all based off of a lack of direct experience. It wasn’t solely a priori in my understanding or thinking this all but I didn’t directly, consciously experience the entire string even if it is embedded into me, yet I have concluded that there is one because it is reasonable and logical to conclude. Or the methods/reason in which why something may seem impossible to the mind as well. However, we can learn this a-priori only because it does exist through a posteriori, a-priori is just deducing logically without directly experiencing or observing something though, one can know or think it exists without experiencing it or seeing it directly.

[Artimas]

My argument is there is no absolute will that is absolutely free
Every aspect of will that is associated with humans are subjected to the human conditions

If there was such a thing as absolute will we would be in total control of our existence where it didnt impact upon the will of others
This is of course not possible and is why religion exists whereby we create the illusion of absolute from within our own limited minds

Religion doesn’t teach absolute really, if it did it is an exaggeration, at least the holy bible. It is basically the ancient man’s guide to human psyche and philosophical/psychological morality. Switch the terminology from then to now and it makes sense, there may be some exaggerations still based from a point of lesser understanding but the ancient man and religion should still be praised for how much they truly did understand about their own minds.

[Artimas]

Desires if not observed for what they are or can be become traps of temporary satisfaction

Instant gratification is ultimately self defeating as it requires more effort over time to achieve the same results
Contentment is therefore a more practical goal as it requires less effort and sustains itself over longer time too

Yeah the trap is the attachment to satisfaction or pleasure, which one must be fully aware of what a desire entails or may lead to in order to severe such attachment.

[Artimas]

it is when one becomes attached to desire that they may become entrapped and the will is less free I feel

It is very hard not to become entrapped by desire given that it is what you want and therefore appears entirely natural
Avoiding it completely is not really possible but controlling or reducing it through self denial or willpower is achievable

Agree, desires are fine and do exist, if one observes them for what they are and what they may lead to, we just need not give our desires so much power over us, this is what creates a less of a will that is free, it is our choices and consciousness of such, that define how free our will is or how limited it may be as we.

[Artimas]

it is when one becomes attached to desire that they may become entrapped and the will is less free I feel

It is very hard not to become entrapped by desire given that it is what you want and therefore appears entirely natural
Avoiding it completely is not really possible but controlling or reducing it through self denial or willpower is achievable

Agree, desires are fine and do exist, if one observes them for what they are and what they may lead to, we just need not give our desires so much power over us, this is what creates a less of a will that is free, it is our choices and consciousness of such, that define how free our will is or how limited it may be as well.

[Artimas]

What you missed out is this;

There are two aspects of thinking and 'will' that run from different paths;

1. Subconscious and instinctual impulses that trigger thoughts which leads to one thinking about the impulses, e.g. hunger. Example, when your stomach is empty, your system will trigger the hunger system which trigger you in thinking you are hungry. In this case, you cannot think freely because the thought of hunger has already arisen in your conscious thinking mind.
Of course you can think about these thoughts [thinking] subsequently, that is conscious thinking.

2. Conscious thinking.

the action of using one's mind to produce thoughts
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thinking

This is where you think of eating. Example when you see someone eating something which trigger you to think consciously of eating and that you also want to eat.
In this case, you can think freely, i.e. in future you can choose not to think of hunger and eating when you see others are eating. This is where impulse control within a person who is fast is doing.

So there are two types of thinking based on the sources of thoughts. You are mixing up this two concepts all the time, thus the confusion.

Yes, I had said we have instincts already, I understand we do.

But we do not have to play into them. That is the point of being conscious.

Consciousness frees itself by understanding the aspects of the subconscious mind.

That’s generally how instincts work yeah, we have a stomach, we didn’t eat, it growls to let us know, we can choose to listen or we can choose to ignore it. It’s a simple warning with simple answers in response. This doesn’t mean the will is not free.

What does the stomach growling have to do with having a mind that’s free? The body is instinctual, the mind doesn’t have to be, the contrast shows in reality of who is controlled by instincts and who isn’t. What’s the point of wisdom or psychology if not to control your own instincts?

Determinism exists, didn’t state it didn’t but it doesn’t negate a free will or free thought. Just because my stomach growls does not mean I automatically have to think of hunger, it’s a good warning though, I could be thinking of a million different things however and I can make a conscious decision on what I wish to do, which has effects I can estimate and predict the outcome. So then how can one be trapped in instinct or by cause/effect if you already know the end game?

It’s like a man seeing a bear trap, his curious instinctual nature taunts him into wanting to understand it, he can choose to step in it or not, he steps in it and then says he has no free will because of the effects and his nature being curiosity, even when he had the option to not.
We are only as bound so far as we let ourselves become bound. The subconscious mind is undeniable, I argue for the subconscious, not against it, I however do argue for multiple levels of consciousness and not solely relying on the subconscious to blame.

What I have noticed is that most seem to confuse the body and choice with the freedom of will, the two are not to be conflated. It is obvious the body communicates, the will does not have to listen. Hence, Evolutions trial and error.

We used to be purely instinctual and not conscious but here we are now, conscious. There are levels. It is due to the subconscious of which we experienced a string of infinity that granted us consciousness, complex development of sensory organs due to trial and error and preservation.
The will is free now because we worked for it in the past and some choose to throw their will away, it’s laughable. Those who chain themselves, might as well return back to the dirt.

The World as Will and Representation is the central work of the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World ... esentation

I believe your idea of 'will' is moving toward that of Schopenhauer, who believe there is 'will' that is independent and work through the conscious human being.

Many argued this idea of 'will' is associated with God.

My argument is there is no absolute will that is absolutely free.
Every aspect of will that is associated with humans are subjected to the human conditions.

Consciousness is subject to human conditions no doubt, it evolved from the subconscious and unconscious aspects of the mind and reality. A will could be considered as subconscious, one can possess knowledge without being conscious but merely subconscious, animals know things and we did as well when we were in that state of instinctive behavior only.

As mentioned above, Schopenhauer's notion of the will comes from the Kantian thing-in-itself, which Kant believed to be the fundamental reality behind the representation that provided the matter of perception, but lacked form. Kant believed that space, time, causation, and many other similar phenomena belonged properly to the form imposed on the world by the human mind in order to create the representation, and these factors were absent from the thing-in-itself. Schopenhauer pointed out that anything outside of time and space could not be differentiated, so the thing-in-itself must be one and all things that exist, including human beings, must be part of this fundamental unity. Our inner-experience must be a manifestation of the noumenal realm and the will is the inner kernel of every being. All knowledge gained of objects is seen as self-referential, as we recognize the same will in other things as is inside us.

I would say this is pretty accurate but I try to provide more form to Kant’s/Scho’s argument. You are right Pris and I’m not denying you that, I just am stating that we misinterpreted what the god is, it’s not a being of worship, that was our own misunderstanding and then trying to project such in its form, which we are still today, suffering from such misunderstanding of the texts and contexts of ancient religions/philosophies. I would say the will existed in the form of instinct but it evolved to be more complex and in this becoming complex it inverted and now is in a fight for its own freedom, if that makes sense. Which that is our consciousness coming from subconscious/unconscious evolution, instinctive change on different levels of complexity.

At this present moment in time I would say yeah, it isn’t completely free, but it is a matter of our path that determines how free it may be, I won’t deny or reject the idea of a completely free will that is possible in the future however. It’s a matter of which path we choose, evolution or de-evolution.

[promethean75]

i can't make much sense out of your posts, artimas, because all i see are persistent category mistakes based around certain ways in which you falsely predicate attributes to dispositions as if they are 'things' in themselves. read over ryle's problem (the wiki article is good too) and maybe this'll make sense. you use the words 'self' and 'mind' and 'consciousness' as if they are additional, superimposed entities onto the dispositions and behaviors we exhibit when we are said to be 'mindful' and 'conscious'.

here's an example of what ryle is talking about: when we observe artimas laughing and dancing and joking, we observe a series of behaviors which indicate that he is conscious and mindful of what he's doing. but the consciousness and mindfulness is not to be described with the same predication as those actions which we describe as such. instead, the dancing and laughing and joking is the disposition we describe as 'conscious'... not that consciousness is doing or being such and such. this is the erroneous cartesian metaphor frequently used in philosophical language. there is no 'entity' called 'mind' or 'self' or 'consciousness'. these are merely words we use to describe dispositions and behaviors. to talk of them as if they possess qualities and properties like 'things' is simply nonsense. unless you are very careful, you'll do this without even recognizing it. it's been going on for centuries in philosophy.

[Artimas]

i can't make much sense out of your posts, artimas, because all i see are persistent category mistakes based around certain ways in which you falsely predicate attributes to dispositions as if they are 'things' in themselves. read over ryle's problem (the wiki article is good too) and maybe this'll make sense. you use the words 'self' and 'mind' and 'consciousness' as if they are additional, superimposed entities onto the dispositions and behaviors we exhibit when we are said to be 'mindful' and 'conscious'.

here's an example of what ryle is talking about: when we observe artimas laughing and dancing and joking, we observe a series of behaviors which indicate that he is conscious and mindful of what he's doing. but the consciousness and mindfulness is not to be described with the same predication as those actions which we describe as such. instead, the dancing and laughing and joking is the disposition we describe as 'conscious'... not that consciousness is doing or being such and such. this is the erroneous cartesian metaphor frequently used in philosophical language. there is no 'entity' called 'mind' or 'self' or 'consciousness'. these are merely words we use to describe dispositions and behaviors. to talk of them as if they possess qualities and properties like 'things' is simply nonsense. unless you are very careful, you'll do this without even recognizing it. it's been going on for centuries in philosophy.

I will read it but I am not sure if you are understanding me correctly, I know these things aren’t entities or separate to our being but they also appear in other forms (different entities external to us).

There are entities that are subconscious, there are things that are unconscious (we may not regard them as alive but still instinctual) and there are things conscious, in a result of the unconscious and subconscious experiencing.

we are all three because evolution happened this way, from a point of less complexity to a point of a confinement of vast complexity both past and future.

Unconscious > subconscious > consciousness

Consciousness is doing whatever I personally choose for it, what you observe is Artimas ego or identity in the form of a body, not his conscious mind, the conscious mind is more vast than that one simple action captured in a moment, in that moment I could be thinking of millions of other things for all you know, consciousness is my awareness and not limited to merely an action or expression observable to you, wouldn’t you say the same? It is important to understand this, since you cannot see my conscious mind due to my not being able to portray it in a single moment philosophically, like what art is considered, dancing, expression, etc. the only possible way to understand it is to understand your own conscious mind, you have different values but ultimately, we function similarly if not the same at the root. Make any sense?

Yes, those are conscious things, but they are also based upon valuing. Not merely being conscious. Consciousness is awareness, awareness is expanded through an understanding, is it not? Consciousness evolved out of subconsciousness(lesser capability in understanding) did it not? We are the conscious entities, our nature is timeless awareness.

Self isn’t an entity but it is a collection of ideology or characteristics that an entity is most comfortable with and manifests the ego or body as through understanding it, self is what one may use to create oneself instead of being created by external input, like information and traumas needing to be dissected from ones past due to external input, ancestry and all. The entity is an entity due to a combination of these sections and or past experiences of the mind and what lead up to the mind as a collection, the reason it may sound as if I talk about them as entities is due to the fact that in nature, we can observe it in full effect, animals, reactions, etc. other states of consciousness I mean, the levels or layers of which I try to explain. Unconscious and subconscious, while we may only do such and understand such by being freely aware(conscious).

[Silhouette]

There may very well be something else that is also occurring besides absolute Determinism: randomness.

that's another confused idea usually used in support of the freewill argument. we expect that because we may not perceive a pattern, repetition, ordered sequence... or are not able to predict with certainty some future event, that therefore there is no causation at work.

there are basically two options here. cartesian dualism or substance monism. everyone here (the freewillists) is operating under the precepts of cartesian dualism, whether they know it or not.

Chill out, man. I am no "freewillist", nor do I ever want to type that "word" again I've been using "Free Will advocate" by the way, seeing as Free Will isn't a singular term - it's two terms.
Nor am I a Dualist.

In fact, I've made that pretty clear on other threads, though I can't expect you to have read everything I've written. I get that you're frustrated by people trying to get away with the errors that you've pointed out, but everything you said is something I've already argued somewhere or other - in fact, I wrote only the other day that Free Will requires Dualism. Are you copying my own points to use against me consciously, unconsciously, or did you come up with that independently? Either way, relax that trigger finger, I'm not your guy.

All I said was that there may be something besides Determinism (alongside it), which is only a nod to models of the quantum realm being so incomplete, but I fully respect the maxim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and I am certainly against the "God of the gaps" nonsense of ascribing "Free Will" to our gaps in knowledge. The only reason I hedge here is because of the existence of things like Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, which may only apply to mathematical axioms, but in the interests of not acting like I completely understand Quantum Mechanics, I'm leaving open the possibility that such logic may apply in physics as well - and even then I only do so extremely tentatively.
My default position until proven otherwise is with Determinism, but I'm not even sure it's possible to prove otherwise since a requirement of knowledge and proof is logical and/or causal sense, which is Determinism by definition. Epistemologically, this is a much more fundamental objection to "Free Will". However, with regards to the burden of proof, that is on the proponent of the existence of something. Free Will is more like a lack of something, and causation is a something, putting the burden on the Determinist. However-however, I also agree that "we can never experience causation, therefore it doesn't exist" is nonsense in the same way that verbs like "to go" don't "not exist" simply because you can't experience a "go". Going, like causing, is a description of ways in which things that exist (nouns) behave, and their existence is in the degree to which the verb matches the behaviour, which causation seemingly does immaculately. However-however-however, if the Free Will advocate is presenting Free Will as a something, or implying of something such as the mind separate from the body/Dualism, and a concrete and precise notion of identity, then I am on your side that the burden of proof is on them in this regard, and they're running into a dead end.

Does that clear things up?

I'll leave the first part alone and only state that you're contradicting yourself from previous systems made... that what you're defining at the end as determinism, you've otherwise defined as "soft determinism" or compatibalism in another post.

Can you clarify that?

Easily. Any possibility of indeterminacy in the quantum realm, whose consequences may or may not spill over beyond that realm isn't "soft Determinism" or "Compatibilism" because there is still no room for Free Will in anything I said in the first part. Indeterminacy might imply "free" but not "will" - if there's any lack of Determinism between inputs and outputs of decision making, randomness removes from "will", if anything. It most certainly does not constitute the exact opposite: proof of your will being enhanced or freed.

Soft Determinism/Compatibilism is a position on Free Will and its incorporation with Determinism. This is not what I am doing, therefore no contradiction.

You said that you have a very high iq, so, you can probably infer this, compatibalism is not a freewill argument, it is an argument which states that for every choice there are restrictions.

So, you're "determinism better than freewill" argument, is a straw man to this regard.

As above, you don't need an IQ as high as mine to simply read a definition of a term. Compatibilism is a Free Will argument.

I can understand if all you wanted to say was that "for every choice there are restrictions", but that's not Compatibilism. If that's all you wanted to point out then I'd just say yes, obviously, and it's all completely consistent with hard Determinism.

However, I can't help but notice the title of your thread "Freewill exists". So forgive me for thinking "Determinism is better than Free Will" was an appropriate argument...
So to clarify, I apply "Determinism is better than Free Will" to your talk of Free Will, and to "for every choice there are restrictions" I am glad that you agree with me. No straw men here, yes?

In saying all that, even as a counter argument, you are the only person so far on these boards that discussed this line of thought intelligently.

I am glad you noticed.

It is a problem in general when one comes up with an argument, and people proceed simply to say what they think instead in response - without even addressing your argument. I would rather set the example of actually engaging with what people set out to discuss.

It seems to be a common instinct in conversation, which irritates me considerably, for people to simply wait for their turn to say what they wanted to say rather than respond to what you just said.

You can certainly expect a reply. I'm too busy for that right now.

You keep saying that you have all these proofs, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding them, and if I do find something I tend to find it ambiguous. So I look forward to your reply on one hand but on the other hand I hope it's clear and not more of the same. You also say you have a high IQ, so my expectations are high.

[Ecmandu]

Sillouette:

So here's the deal.

I've shown through a limit proof that absolute determinism is impossible.

I've also shown through proof that absolute freewill is impossible.

I'm arguing your point about chaos, which I'm now going to argue fails because of my disproof of absolute creationism, or absolute freewill, that when a person is in an absolute creationism mode (omnipotent), that they are in a random or chaotic system. I'm distinguishing here between chaos and complexity (fractal would be an example of complexity).

So my argument here is that an absolute creative being or cosmos would solve at the limit of as the same as both absolute chaos as well... or just does what it wants without restriction.

I'm basically arguing that because the limits are impossible, that there must be compatabilism.

I used the compatibalism of freewill, and you used the compatibalism of chaos.

This contradicts you saying that compatibalism is a direct contradiction ...

Interested in your thoughts.

I defined will as an epiphenomenon of less than 100% determinism ... you define that precept as chaos.

The reason I don't think that argument works is because the aspect of "I exist" (as continuity of consciousness over time) is conceptually inconsistent with the second ingredient being chaos. This argues for a stable will that is less than absolute determinism and greater than chaos.

[Artimas]

Is ones present awareness or thinking in and of the present moment not free?

What is not free is more awareness but it does grant more will at ones disposal.

So then in my present moment of not yet choosing, I can choose to pursue a lesser will or a higher will, that choice is not free to me?

An expansion or shrinking of the will is the only truly free choice we get if that makes sense. Due to the free will not being yet confined to a choice. But if we choose a higher will then is that not the freeing of the will itself through choice? Due to expansion of possibilities and choice through a choosing to understand?