Freewill exists

[Silhouette]

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

Yes and I asked for clarity, and I provided some questions to guide you in the general direction of what I'm asking for. I'm still waiting, if you want to oblige, which you don't have to.

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

Was that in the same opening post of this thread? If so, it's what I'm asking for clarity on. If not, then I've missed it - my apologies - perhaps you can link it, or type it out again here as clearly as you can.

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.

Again, can you link to or reiterate this disproof of absolute creationism/absolute Free Will? This is exactly what I'm talking about when you say you have all these proofs and I never see them, or at least if I do they aren't clear. I seem to remember English isn't your first language, but your lack of clarity sounds more like imprecise thinking than an issue with the language. "An absolute creative being or cosmos would solve at the limit of as the same as both absolute chaos as well"? What does this mean?? An omnipotent creator doing what it wants without restriction is absolute chaos?

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.

Right, so you're referring to Compatibilism as a general position, between any thesis and antithesis? All this time I've been assuming you were using it according to its normal use in philosophical discussion i.e. as an attempted synthesesis between Free Will and Determinism - especially since that's what your thread title suggests you want to discuss. The term Compatibilism according with its accepted use in philosophy has nothing to do with chaos, since chaos counters both Free Will and Determinism. So in that sense, I am not talking about Compatibilism when I speak of chaos. But if you want to use the term more generally, please specify - again you're lacking clarity if this is the case, then sure the notion of "order emerging from chaos" is a kind of "compatibilism" with a lower case "c". But there is no contradiction between speaking of a relationship between Determinism and Indeterminacy, and speaking against Free Will or Compatibilism with a capital "C".

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.

Speaking of epiphenonena, Epiphenomenalism is one way in which a sentient being can be intelligent and still 100% subject to Determinism. To be clear, again I am using the term according to its accepted use in Philosophy. Even if there is a non-zero percentage of indeterminacy, that is not will - it is the opposite of will, if anything as I explained in my last post. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to define the will as a stable concept.

[Ecmandu]

Ok silluoutte,

Here we go, with the proof again.

Determinism as an operational definition is : it could not have happened any other way.

Freewill is operationally defined as: it could happen any other way.

Absent absolute freewill. The argument here for a modicum of freewill is that once we decide, determinism takes over.

So the question then, is "do we decide"?

I gave this proof:

If something happened because of absolute determinism (it couldn't have gone any other way)

Then the limit for this deterministic argument is that we know every reason why we know what we know, and all of those reasons are EXTERNAL - thus no internal to define or abstract a will (internal)

However, if all of those reasons are internal (absolute freewill) , then there'd be nothing outside to distinguish itself from.

The argument being that at the thought experiment absolute limits allow neither absolute determinism or an absolute creator ...

So, then we are stuck with compatibalism.

You then argue that absolute chaos counters both freewill and determinism.

Absolute chaos is a system where refererents are impossible to abstract (not to be confused with complexity)

Since you understand content, and you have given chaos as the defining characteristic of life and the world.

If you want to debate this further...

Define absolute chaos as different than absolute complexity!

They are very different, and you're confounding the two when debating.

[Silhouette]

Ok silluoutte,

Here we go, with the proof again.

Determinism as an operational definition is : it could not have happened any other way.

Freewill is operationally defined as: it could happen any other way.

Absent absolute freewill. The argument here for a modicum of freewill is that once we decide, determinism takes over.

So the question then, is "do we decide"?

Sure.

The critical word here being "we", as in a locus of identity.

I will refer you to what promethean wrote on an earlier post in this thread about this:

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'?

Identity is an extremely problematic concept. Everyone gains an intuitive understanding of "generally" what it is, but upon examination it's infamously impossible to pinpoint with any precision.

I gave this proof:

If something happened because of absolute determinism (it couldn't have gone any other way)

Then the limit for this deterministic argument is that we know every reason why we know what we know, and all of those reasons are EXTERNAL - thus no internal to define or abstract a will (internal)

However, if all of those reasons are internal (absolute freewill) , then there'd be nothing outside to distinguish itself from.

The argument being that at the thought experiment absolute limits allow neither absolute determinism or an absolute creator ...

So, then we are stuck with compatibalism.

With the dissolution of identity upon examination, as above re: promethean, neither of these arguments are really a problem.

The "internal" and "external" no longer hold up. Well, I'm assuming they're relating to identity at least in some sense - I keep asking you to explain these terms, but you still haven't.

You then argue that absolute chaos counters both freewill and determinism.

Absolute chaos is a system where refererents are impossible to abstract (not to be confused with complexity)

Since you understand content, and you have given chaos as the defining characteristic of life and the world.

If you want to debate this further...

Define absolute chaos as different than absolute complexity!

They are very different, and you're confounding the two when debating.

Who is talking about absolute chaos?

I'm not conflating chaos and complexity... where did you get that idea? In fact I wrote just the other day of Determinism that its problem is its complexity, which is harder to apply to simple everyday life, which puts simple-minded people off the idea, and I write of chaos that it's indeterminate. Chaos: indeterminacy, Complexity: Determinism. I don't understand how you think I'm doing anything other than the opposite of conflation...

I've also said I'm extremely tentative about leaving open room for indeterminacy at all, and even if there is any it's likely only relevant to the quantum world, and if sensitivity to initial conditions brings these effects above the quantum realm to everyday life, such effects are evidently minor next to the profound success of Determinism pretty much everywhere. That is to say, given indeterminacy, its effects are only going to be extremely marginal - this is the opposite of me speaking of absolute chaos!

The best that chaos can do is to emerge as order in the vast majority of cases, despite originating from chaos. This would still mean that in effect, Determinism reigns in spite of chaos. Still no absolute chaos.

I'm calling straw man.

[Artimas]

Ok silluoutte,

Here we go, with the proof again.

Determinism as an operational definition is : it could not have happened any other way.

Freewill is operationally defined as: it could happen any other way.

Absent absolute freewill. The argument here for a modicum of freewill is that once we decide, determinism takes over.

So the question then, is "do we decide"?

Sure.

The critical word here being "we", as in a locus of identity.

I will refer you to what promethean wrote on an earlier post in this thread about this:

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'?

Identity is an extremely problematic concept. Everyone gains an intuitive understanding of "generally" what it is, but upon examination it's infamously impossible to pinpoint with any precision.

I gave this proof:

If something happened because of absolute determinism (it couldn't have gone any other way)

Then the limit for this deterministic argument is that we know every reason why we know what we know, and all of those reasons are EXTERNAL - thus no internal to define or abstract a will (internal)

However, if all of those reasons are internal (absolute freewill) , then there'd be nothing outside to distinguish itself from.

The argument being that at the thought experiment absolute limits allow neither absolute determinism or an absolute creator ...

So, then we are stuck with compatibalism.

With the dissolution of identity upon examination, as above re: promethean, neither of these arguments are really a problem.

The "internal" and "external" no longer hold up. Well, I'm assuming they're relating to identity at least in some sense - I keep asking you to explain these terms, but you still haven't.

You then argue that absolute chaos counters both freewill and determinism.

Absolute chaos is a system where refererents are impossible to abstract (not to be confused with complexity)

Since you understand content, and you have given chaos as the defining characteristic of life and the world.

If you want to debate this further...

Define absolute chaos as different than absolute complexity!

They are very different, and you're confounding the two when debating.

Who is talking about absolute chaos?

I'm not conflating chaos and complexity... where did you get that idea? In fact I wrote just the other day of Determinism that its problem is its complexity, which is harder to apply to simple everyday life, which puts simple-minded people off the idea, and I write of chaos that it's indeterminate. Chaos: indeterminacy, Complexity: Determinism. I don't understand how you think I'm doing anything other than the opposite of conflation...

I've also said I'm extremely tentative about leaving open room for indeterminacy at all, and even if there is any it's likely only relevant to the quantum world, and if sensitivity to initial conditions brings these effects above the quantum realm to everyday life, such effects are evidently minor next to the profound success of Determinism pretty much everywhere. That is to say, given indeterminacy, its effects are only going to be extremely marginal - this is the opposite of me speaking of absolute chaos!

The best that chaos can do is to emerge as order in the vast majority of cases, despite originating from chaos. This would still mean that in effect, Determinism reigns in spite of chaos. Still no absolute chaos.

I'm calling straw man.

It’s not as problematic as one would make it seem, the identity, self, the mind in general to be honest.

Do people get an intuitive understanding? Is that why people are lost in society and don’t know themselves and live as complete byproducts of environmentally indoctrinated ideologies that they themselves do not support due to being blinded by satisfaction? Is that why most people don’t educate themselves or seek wisdom? I don’t think most people get an intuitive understanding. I think that may be a projection.

I feel I have given some pretty good points and solutions on how to pin point it, by seeking to understand the self. The hermit is always the “crazy” one though right? He who lives less distracted by isolation and has a great vision from the outside but also inside himself as well.

I did address that post by promethean as well..

[Prismatic567]

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.

Now you are not sure. The problem is you are too arrogant and not acknowledging your limitations.

The more credible proposition is there is no absolute completely free will.

Point is you don't have a solid grounding in philosophical theories, that is why you are shooting all over. In a way, I think this is good for you if you keep asking questions and hopefully someday you will shoot near the bull eyes rather than everywhere.

Why you are not giving up the idea of a completely free will is due to your internal psychological insecurities. You insist you are well inform of psychology, but you are not, suggest you do more research to 'Know Thyself.'

[Ecmandu]

Sillouette,

It means squat that identity cannot be found upon closer examination.

That's true of everything.

If you take a microscope to a tree, it will look nothing like a tree. If you walk 40 miles away, you'll no longer see a tree.

Our self, like everything that exists is self evidently there as a median of perceptual acuity.

It does not negate the tree when you take a microscope to it, just like it doesn't negate us of you examine closer or further away.

We exist in a sweet spot, regardless

[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.

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.

Now you are not sure. The problem is you are too arrogant and not acknowledging your limitations.

The more credible proposition is there is no absolute completely free will.

Point is you don't have a solid grounding in philosophical theories, that is why you are shooting all over. In a way, I think this is good for you if you keep asking questions and hopefully someday you will shoot near the bull eyes rather than everywhere.

Why you are not giving up the idea of a completely free will is due to your internal psychological insecurities. You insist you are well inform of psychology, but you are not, suggest you do more research to 'Know Thyself.'

I never said the Will was completely free, just free but it depends on a choice. The choice is what frees the will or doesn’t free the will, and it is a continuity as well. I know myself and do do psychology. I was never arguing for a completely free will, i can’t say if there is or isn’t an absolute free will because we do not understand everything. The will is as free as one may choose for it to be.

We aren’t talking about god and omniscience here, we’re talking about humans.

[Prismatic567]

I never said the Will was completely free, just free but it depends on a choice. The choice is what frees the will or doesn’t free the will, and it is a continuity as well. I know myself and do do psychology. I was never arguing for a completely free will, i can’t say if there is or isn’t an absolute free will because we do not understand everything. The will is as free as one may choose for it to be.

We aren’t talking about god and omniscience here, we’re talking about humans.

Many a times you may think and is so sure you are exercising a free choice, like buying a bar of chocolate at the supermarket counter not knowing the company and advertisers had subliminally compelled you to choose that chocolate via all sort of advertising techniques including subliminal advertising.

One good example is those Muslim ladies who insist they are wearing the hijab or burga [full covering except a slit] based on their free choice, not knowing they are being commanded by some religious zombie parasites within the brain and mind.

In the real world, there are loads of parasites that compel their hosts to act to their commands but in such a way that made the host thinks it is making a 'conscious' choice.

There is no completely freewill in whatever sense your expressed it.

[Silhouette]

Sillouette,

It means squat that identity cannot be found upon closer examination.

That's true of everything.

If you take a microscope to a tree, it will look nothing like a tree. If you walk 40 miles away, you'll no longer see a tree.

Our self, like everything that exists is self evidently there as a median of perceptual acuity.

It does not negate the tree when you take a microscope to it, just like it doesn't negate us of you examine closer or further away.

We exist in a sweet spot, regardless

Exactly, so I ask again: where. are. the. boundaries. of. internal. versus. external? ? ? ? What are they, why are they? Are they related to identity or not? Why do you keep avoiding all my questions?

Interestingly this whole concept is an issue with fractals, for which a real world example is demonstrated by coastlines. The further away you observe a coastline, the shorter the distance appears to be from one end to the other, or the shorter the perimeter if it's an island. You might say that to get to the "real" length/perimeter of the coastline you just have to get closer and examine in more detail as is tradition with Euclidean geometry, and the same assumption goes for Newtonian physics. The problem is that the more detail you go into, the longer the coastline.... to infinity - like all fractals it diverges, it doesn't converge like we were all traditionally used to with integer dimensions.

So coastlines are infinitely long? Well how can that be? They bound a finite shape with finite area that does converge to a particular measure, but it takes infinitely long to get around a finite area? Is it then possible to define infinite (i.e.. undefinable) edges to real world objects anymore, or is identity relative to the observer like we've all now accepted of spacetime in physics since Einstein? In philosophy since postmodernists like Derrida? In quantum mechanics? Even in history, one must be careful not to commit the "Historian's fallacy".

Where does this leave us? Well it sure presents problems with identity and any mysterious concepts of "internal" and "external" that I'm still waiting on definitions for...

[Artimas]

I never said the Will was completely free, just free but it depends on a choice. The choice is what frees the will or doesn’t free the will, and it is a continuity as well. I know myself and do do psychology. I was never arguing for a completely free will, i can’t say if there is or isn’t an absolute free will because we do not understand everything. The will is as free as one may choose for it to be.

We aren’t talking about god and omniscience here, we’re talking about humans.

Many a times you may think and is so sure you are exercising a free choice, like buying a bar of chocolate at the supermarket counter not knowing the company and advertisers had subliminally compelled you to choose that chocolate via all sort of advertising techniques including subliminal advertising.

One good example is those Muslim ladies who insist they are wearing the hijab or burga [full covering except a slit] based on their free choice, not knowing they are being commanded by some religious zombie parasites within the brain and mind.

In the real world, there are loads of parasites that compel their hosts to act to their commands but in such a way that made the host thinks it is making a 'conscious' choice.

There is no completely freewill in whatever sense your expressed it.

I am not commanded by religion nor commanded by anyone.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle.

Just because most people are indoctrinated and do not make choices based on their own free thinking and will does not mean a free will does not exist at all. Education is not a free choice but it does free the will slowly as a reward of choosing to pursue it.

[Silhouette]

I am not commanded by religion nor commanded by anyone.

You feel like you aren't, just like everyone. When you test it or think it through, however, nope - you are.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - absolutely. But this has nothing to do with Free Will: the education determines that you are able and going to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Just because most people are indoctrinated and do not make choices based on their own free thinking and will does not mean a free will does not exist at all. Education is not a free choice but it does free the will slowly as a reward of choosing to pursue it.

This is the normal conclusion of somebody who, ironically, isn't psychologically "free" enough (willing) to let go of the idea that it's their "identity" that is in complete control. Of course it's true that some people are indoctrinated, or unable/unwilling to think/act beyond certain boundaries, and there's a difference between these people and those who are colloquially termed "free thinkers". But free thought is just as much determined as indoctrinated or fearful thought, just in different ways.

It's been extraordinarily difficult to get some people to understand and accept this in my experience, because it's an emotional attachment and not a rational choice to cling to Free Will. It's a mental reflex to immediately assume that the person arguing against Free Will is indoctrinated, not a "free thinker" etc. - even if they think they are. "You" know you're a free thinker, so it must be they who are at fault, right?

I can only say that the last challenge of the "free thinker", after all free thought is explored, is to be free from the idea that they were ever a free thinker at all.

[Artimas]

I am not commanded by religion nor commanded by anyone.

You feel like you aren't, just like everyone. When you test it or think it through, however, nope - you are.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - absolutely. But this has nothing to do with Free Will: the education determines that you are able and going to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Just because most people are indoctrinated and do not make choices based on their own free thinking and will does not mean a free will does not exist at all. Education is not a free choice but it does free the will slowly as a reward of choosing to pursue it.

This is the normal conclusion of somebody who, ironically, isn't psychologically "free" enough (willing) to let go of the idea that it's their "identity" that is in complete control. Of course it's true that some people are indoctrinated, or unable/unwilling to think/act beyond certain boundaries, and there's a difference between these people and those who are colloquially termed "free thinkers". But free thought is just as much determined as indoctrinated or fearful thought, just in different ways.

It's been extraordinarily difficult to get some people to understand and accept this in my experience, because it's an emotional attachment and not a rational choice to cling to Free Will. It's a mental reflex to immediately assume that the person arguing against Free Will is indoctrinated, not a "free thinker" etc. - even if they think they are. "You" know you're a free thinker, so it must be they who are at fault, right?

I can only say that the last challenge of the "free thinker", after all free thought is explored, is to be free from the idea that they were ever a free thinker at all.

So you’re saying I follow others ideas without my knowing? What if I told you, I originate my own ideas? you miss the entire meaning of that quote, attachment is what creates a binding of the will, it’s psychologically proven, addicts. So an addict is not less or more free than you given their current predicament of failing to cope normally and not being able to understand themself due to a weak will to desire and value attribution.

Yes, education shows you the possibilities if you make the choice in pursuing it. It is a determined choice that may free the will.

You have a choice, be a slave to others ideas or to be a slave to your own ideas. Which one do you think is more or less valuable to you and why is it valuable? Freedom comes from proper value attribution of ones will. Ignorance being abolished with education. It’s quite literally, a determined choice that grants more will and usually when something becomes /less/ confined, it’s more /freeing/.

At the roots determinism plays a role. But when a will may be expanded by a conscious choice to become less confined how is that not a decision to grant a more free will? Because it was worked for? You reap what you sow and you sow whatever it is you choose to value.

Things have control over people because people place value over things. I’d say there are levels of will like there are levels of consciousness, one is higher than the other, so is this more or less, silhouette? Ones choice is what determines ones will, one can choose to be bound or one can continue to unbind oneself but never being unbound completely until dead.

I wonder why people place /value/ on money, hmmm.. maybe because having it is /more/ freeing.

I never stated the identity wasn’t in control, but I may choose my identity based on choosing my environment and letting go of the past, so is that not my choosing to to be my own person, free of others? What is creating ones own environment then?

I do believe in cause and effect and I do subscribe to fate, I do however subscribe to the idea that we may choose our fate. Which is the aspect to our will of which is free.

Overall I think there are layers of determinism and layers of free will within that system. Loopholes if you will.

[Ecmandu]

Sillouette,

It means squat that identity cannot be found upon closer examination.

That's true of everything.

If you take a microscope to a tree, it will look nothing like a tree. If you walk 40 miles away, you'll no longer see a tree.

Our self, like everything that exists is self evidently there as a median of perceptual acuity.

It does not negate the tree when you take a microscope to it, just like it doesn't negate us of you examine closer or further away.

We exist in a sweet spot, regardless

Exactly, so I ask again: where. are. the. boundaries. of. internal. versus. external? ? ? ? What are they, why are they? Are they related to identity or not? Why do you keep avoiding all my questions?

Interestingly this whole concept is an issue with fractals, for which a real world example is demonstrated by coastlines. The further away you observe a coastline, the shorter the distance appears to be from one end to the other, or the shorter the perimeter if it's an island. You might say that to get to the "real" length/perimeter of the coastline you just have to get closer and examine in more detail as is tradition with Euclidean geometry, and the same assumption goes for Newtonian physics. The problem is that the more detail you go into, the longer the coastline.... to infinity - like all fractals it diverges, it doesn't converge like we were all traditionally used to with integer dimensions.

So coastlines are infinitely long? Well how can that be? They bound a finite shape with finite area that does converge to a particular measure, but it takes infinitely long to get around a finite area? Is it then possible to define infinite (i.e.. undefinable) edges to real world objects anymore, or is identity relative to the observer like we've all now accepted of spacetime in physics since Einstein? In philosophy since postmodernists like Derrida? In quantum mechanics? Even in history, one must be careful not to commit the "Historian's fallacy".

Where does this leave us? Well it sure presents problems with identity and any mysterious concepts of "internal" and "external" that I'm still waiting on definitions for...

Besides delving into a Zeno here...

I actually missed that you were asking me to explicitly define internal and external.

My answer is the limit stuff again.

We know for a fact that 100% external is impossible.

So... internal is the remainder.

That simple.

Then we got into a little scrape about whether that remainder was internal or chaos.

I responded that if it was chaos, it wouldn't be able to hold a stable identity (which is self evident in a very large range - even people with dissociative identity disorder have a stable identity.)

So, I stated that the remainder has to be less than determinism but more than chaos (absolute creationism.

It's this sweet spot, which is identity, the internal.

It's a process of elimination here.

[Silhouette]

Besides delving into a Zeno here...

I actually missed that you were asking me to explicitly define internal and external.

Well it was only the 3rd time I asked, so that's a little worrying when it comes to how much of what I'm saying that you're reading/retaining.

And this worry is only compounded by your response to my question:

My answer is the limit stuff again.

We know for a fact that 100% external is impossible.

So... internal is the remainder.

That simple.

Fine, so internal is "not external" - complex stuff here - but in "answering" half the question, you've still not shed any light on the definition of "external" from which to define "internal" as "not that"... - thereby not answering anything at all.

Please do excuse my frustration, but if you could read and try to understand what I'm asking, I would be very grateful.

Then we got into a little scrape about whether that remainder was internal or chaos.

I responded that if it was chaos, it wouldn't be able to hold a stable identity (which is self evident in a very large range - even people with dissociative identity disorder have a stable identity.)

And the examples I gave of Jupiter's "red spot" and the Lorenz attractor are examples of a stable identity emerging from chaos...
And the whole point is that identity itself isn't a stable concept even for people without dissociative identity disorder et al.

Again some things you seem to have either not read, not understood, or not remembered...

If I'm the only one making an effort here then please let me know. Honestly speaking this is why I tend to avoid engaging with you, because the kind of consistent lack of clarity and progress that I tend to get from you is a waste of my time.

So you’re saying I follow others ideas without my knowing? What if I told you, I originate my own ideas? you miss the entire meaning of that quote, attachment is what creates a binding of the will, it’s psychologically proven, addicts. So an addict is not less or more free than you given their current predicament of failing to cope normally and not being able to understand themself due to a weak will to desire and value attribution.

And here comes the exact defensive presumptions that I predicted... such a shame.

I know exactly what you're saying when you say you originate your own ideas, and what you think you mean applies the same to me. But it's not "free" thought in the sense that it bypasses Determinism, it's just "free" in that your own effort and inspiration go into it, and any simple repetition is absent. The work and inspiration themselves, however, were determined to occur - so as free as we may be from being told what to think, it's still not "us" and our wills that are free from everything else.
I'm inviting you to entertain a line of thinking here, you don't have to oblige me - in that you are "free" in the way you mean it, but whichever way you choose will have been determined by something - even if not directly by other people's words and actions. This is what closes all these loopholes that you think you see.

I've not missed the entire meaning of the quote, and I'm suggesting, as politely as I can that it may be yourself who is "attacted"... just trust me when I say I already understand everything else you argue in this post - you probably aren't familiar with me as a poster so you probably have little reason to trust me, but it's true that I already understand your argument.

[Ecmandu]

Sillouette,

I think your asking me to define internal and external have not been overt, but implied in the last three posts, except for the last one, which was very specific.

So I just kept telling you that 100% internal is impossible and 100% external is impossible.

Like I said, I defined them as absolute "knowing every reason that you know what you know" and if all of those reasons are external, that, that's the LIMIT of determinism, and likewise, if ALL of those reasons are internal !! Then you have absolute chaos, otherwise known as absolute freewill or absolute creationism.

Let's please not talk over each other, as I think we have both been answering each other's posts and responding to them appropriately.

You're using the term chaos incorrectly. Chaos is so chaotic that it's undefined, if you can define it, than by definition, it can't be chaos. What you're referring to, as I mentioned earlier, is complexity.

So here we are. Let's see where this goes.

[Artimas]

Sillouette,

It means squat that identity cannot be found upon closer examination.

That's true of everything.

If you take a microscope to a tree, it will look nothing like a tree. If you walk 40 miles away, you'll no longer see a tree.

Our self, like everything that exists is self evidently there as a median of perceptual acuity.

It does not negate the tree when you take a microscope to it, just like it doesn't negate us of you examine closer or further away.

We exist in a sweet spot, regardless

Exactly, so I ask again: where. are. the. boundaries. of. internal. versus. external? ? ? ? What are they, why are they? Are they related to identity or not? Why do you keep avoiding all my questions?

Interestingly this whole concept is an issue with fractals, for which a real world example is demonstrated by coastlines. The further away you observe a coastline, the shorter the distance appears to be from one end to the other, or the shorter the perimeter if it's an island. You might say that to get to the "real" length/perimeter of the coastline you just have to get closer and examine in more detail as is tradition with Euclidean geometry, and the same assumption goes for Newtonian physics. The problem is that the more detail you go into, the longer the coastline.... to infinity - like all fractals it diverges, it doesn't converge like we were all traditionally used to with integer dimensions.

So coastlines are infinitely long? Well how can that be? They bound a finite shape with finite area that does converge to a particular measure, but it takes infinitely long to get around a finite area? Is it then possible to define infinite (i.e.. undefinable) edges to real world objects anymore, or is identity relative to the observer like we've all now accepted of spacetime in physics since Einstein? In philosophy since postmodernists like Derrida? In quantum mechanics? Even in history, one must be careful not to commit the "Historian's fallacy".

Where does this leave us? Well it sure presents problems with identity and any mysterious concepts of "internal" and "external" that I'm still waiting on definitions for...

Besides delving into a Zeno here...

I actually missed that you were asking me to explicitly define internal and external.

My answer is the limit stuff again.

We know for a fact that 100% external is impossible.

So... internal is the remainder.

That simple.

Then we got into a little scrape about whether that remainder was internal or chaos.

I responded that if it was chaos, it wouldn't be able to hold a stable identity (which is self evident in a very large range - even people with dissociative identity disorder have a stable identity.)

So, I stated that the remainder has to be less than determinism but more than chaos (absolute creationism.

It's this sweet spot, which is identity, the internal.

It's a process of elimination here.

The mind and it’s many inter-relating sections are interesting, I’d say the sweet spot you refer to is the deep down self that one wants to portray the identity as, it’s the most freedom an individual can have, is themself. The going inside to project an outside based off of an understanding of this inside.

[Artimas]

Besides delving into a Zeno here...

I actually missed that you were asking me to explicitly define internal and external.

Well it was only the 3rd time I asked, so that's a little worrying when it comes to how much of what I'm saying that you're reading/retaining.

And this worry is only compounded by your response to my question:

My answer is the limit stuff again.

We know for a fact that 100% external is impossible.

So... internal is the remainder.

That simple.

Fine, so internal is "not external" - complex stuff here - but in "answering" half the question, you've still not shed any light on the definition of "external" from which to define "internal" as "not that"... - thereby not answering anything at all.

Please do excuse my frustration, but if you could read and try to understand what I'm asking, I would be very grateful.

Then we got into a little scrape about whether that remainder was internal or chaos.

I responded that if it was chaos, it wouldn't be able to hold a stable identity (which is self evident in a very large range - even people with dissociative identity disorder have a stable identity.)

And the examples I gave of Jupiter's "red spot" and the Lorenz attractor are examples of a stable identity emerging from chaos...
And the whole point is that identity itself isn't a stable concept even for people without dissociative identity disorder et al.

Again some things you seem to have either not read, not understood, or not remembered...

If I'm the only one making an effort here then please let me know. Honestly speaking this is why I tend to avoid engaging with you, because the kind of consistent lack of clarity and progress that I tend to get from you is a waste of my time.

So you’re saying I follow others ideas without my knowing? What if I told you, I originate my own ideas? you miss the entire meaning of that quote, attachment is what creates a binding of the will, it’s psychologically proven, addicts. So an addict is not less or more free than you given their current predicament of failing to cope normally and not being able to understand themself due to a weak will to desire and value attribution.

And here comes the exact defensive presumptions that I predicted... such a shame.

I know exactly what you're saying when you say you originate your own ideas, and what you think you mean applies the same to me. But it's not "free" thought in the sense that it bypasses Determinism, it's just "free" in that your own effort and inspiration go into it, and any simple repetition is absent. The work and inspiration themselves, however, were determined to occur - so as free as we may be from being told what to think, it's still not "us" and our wills that are free from everything else.
I'm inviting you to entertain a line of thinking here, you don't have to oblige me - in that you are "free" in the way you mean it, but whichever way you choose will have been determined by something - even if not directly by other people's words and actions. This is what closes all these loopholes that you think you see.

I've not missed the entire meaning of the quote, and I'm suggesting, as politely as I can that it may be yourself who is "attacted"... just trust me when I say I already understand everything else you argue in this post - you probably aren't familiar with me as a poster so you probably have little reason to trust me, but it's true that I already understand your argument.

The loophole isn’t closed, we’re still in and going through it. That’s the thing you don’t see that I am trying to explain. We have yet to go extinct and we have much more to understand. The pursuit of an understanding of self and how things are and what is possible.

What am I attached to? The idea of responsibility instead of everything being out of my control? Some things are out of our control, there is no doubt. But not all things, if there is a trace of any aspect to and of will being free, then that is what should be focused upon and given thought. If you stop at an idea then there is no will that remains free, so it is our determined choice of the pursuit of understanding of which keeps the loop open because there is always more to be understood. Some loops close for more to be opened, that is evolution I’d say.

[Silhouette]

The loophole isn’t closed, we’re still in and going through it. That’s the thing you don’t see that I am trying to explain. We have yet to go extinct and we have much more to understand. The pursuit of an understanding of self and how things are and what is possible.

I'm listening. Your last post didn't explain how the loophole isn't closed, and you don't seem to have expanded beyond that here...
"There could be some future thing we understand that illustrates your stance" isn't an argument. It's not false, but it does nothing to counter the unsurmountable wall of reason and evidence already against Free Will.

What am I attached to? The idea of responsibility instead of everything being out of my control? Some things are out of our control, there is no doubt. But not all things, if there is a trace of any aspect to and of will being free, then that is what should be focused upon and given. If you stop at an idea then there is no will that remains free, so it is our determined choice of the pursuit of understanding of which keeps the loop open because there is always more to be understood. Some loops close for more to be opened, that is evolution I’d say.

Are you suggesting that certainty in Determinism, in itself opens up Free Will? That would be an interesting argument, but it needs fleshing out to be persuasive.

Yes, you are attached to the idea of responsibility. I don't see any trace of any aspect to and of will being free... keeping an open mind is good and all with regard to inductive reasoning, but not when the answers are there: as soon as you have deductive disproofs, then no amount of future evidence is potentially going to prove it at some possible point in time.

My primary argument is that if there is a reason for a decision then there is will, but it is not free from that reason, and if there is no reason for a decision then there is no will, no matter how free from determinacy a reasonless choice may be.
This and other arguments I have can be found on this other thread.

Sillouette,

I think your asking me to define internal and external have not been overt, but implied in the last three posts, except for the last one, which was very specific.

Clearly you didn't check...

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?

The "internal" and "external" no longer hold up. Well, I'm assuming they're relating to identity at least in some sense - I keep asking you to explain these terms, but you still haven't.

Not overt at all...

ANYWAY, moving on...

Like I said, I defined them as absolute "knowing every reason that you know what you know" and if all of those reasons are external, that, that's the LIMIT of determinism, and likewise, if ALL of those reasons are internal !! Then you have absolute chaos, otherwise known as absolute freewill or absolute creationism.

A reiteration of your argument, not a definition of external (or internal).

"If all reasons are external then limit of Determinism": sure, but WHAT IS "EXTERNAL"?! Define it.
"If all reasons are internal then absolute chaos/Free will/absolute Creationism", exactly what I've argued against and had no indication that you've even acknowledged...

Let's please not talk over each other, as I think we have both been answering each other's posts and responding to them appropriately.

It's truly saddening that you think this.

You're using the term chaos incorrectly. Chaos is so chaotic that it's undefined, if you can define it, than by definition, it can't be chaos. What you're referring to, as I mentioned earlier, is complexity.

No. I am not referring to complexity.
I'm not defining chaos, I'm defining Determinism and not-that is called indeterminacy. I'm not going into what's ordered about indeterminacy/chaos.

This is a waste of time, I'll give you one more try.

[Ecmandu]

Sillouette,

In using LIMITS!!! I'm defining freewill BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION!!!

I'm fulfilling your requests.

[Artimas]

The loophole isn’t closed, we’re still in and going through it. That’s the thing you don’t see that I am trying to explain. We have yet to go extinct and we have much more to understand. The pursuit of an understanding of self and how things are and what is possible.

I'm listening. Your last post didn't explain how the loophole isn't closed, and you don't seem to have expanded beyond that here...
"There could be some future thing we understand that illustrates your stance" isn't an argument. It's not false, but it does nothing to counter the unsurmountable wall of reason and evidence already against Free Will.

What am I attached to? The idea of responsibility instead of everything being out of my control? Some things are out of our control, there is no doubt. But not all things, if there is a trace of any aspect to and of will being free, then that is what should be focused upon and given. If you stop at an idea then there is no will that remains free, so it is our determined choice of the pursuit of understanding of which keeps the loop open because there is always more to be understood. Some loops close for more to be opened, that is evolution I’d say.

Are you suggesting that certainty in Determinism, in itself opens up Free Will? That would be an interesting argument, but it needs fleshing out to be persuasive.

Yes, you are attached to the idea of responsibility. I don't see any trace of any aspect to and of will being free... keeping an open mind is good and all with regard to inductive reasoning, but not when the answers are there: as soon as you have deductive disproofs, then no amount of future evidence is potentially going to prove it at some possible point in time.

My primary argument is that if there is a reason for a decision then there is will, but it is not free from that reason, and if there is no reason for a decision then there is no will, no matter how free from determinacy a reasonless choice may be.
This and other arguments I have can be found on this other thread.

Sillouette,

I think your asking me to define internal and external have not been overt, but implied in the last three posts, except for the last one, which was very specific.

Clearly you didn't check...

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?

The "internal" and "external" no longer hold up. Well, I'm assuming they're relating to identity at least in some sense - I keep asking you to explain these terms, but you still haven't.

Not overt at all...

ANYWAY, moving on...

Like I said, I defined them as absolute "knowing every reason that you know what you know" and if all of those reasons are external, that, that's the LIMIT of determinism, and likewise, if ALL of those reasons are internal !! Then you have absolute chaos, otherwise known as absolute freewill or absolute creationism.

A reiteration of your argument, not a definition of external (or internal).

"If all reasons are external then limit of Determinism": sure, but WHAT IS "EXTERNAL"?! Define it.
"If all reasons are internal then absolute chaos/Free will/absolute Creationism", exactly what I've argued against and had no indication that you've even acknowledged...

Let's please not talk over each other, as I think we have both been answering each other's posts and responding to them appropriately.

It's truly saddening that you think this.

You're using the term chaos incorrectly. Chaos is so chaotic that it's undefined, if you can define it, than by definition, it can't be chaos. What you're referring to, as I mentioned earlier, is complexity.

No. I am not referring to complexity.
I'm not defining chaos, I'm defining Determinism and not-that is called indeterminacy. I'm not going into what's ordered about indeterminacy/chaos.

This is a waste of time, I'll give you one more try.

That may be what I am trying to explain.

If you know the rules of the game, then you may cheat the rules to make the game how you want it, it is a matter of understanding the correct things in sequence and to stay on top of the changes/time, a continuity of this pursuing an understanding all facets.

The reason the loop is open and stays open is because there is always more to understand, the impossibilities are endless for our species if in a collective state of understanding. We may go extinct eventually to either spawn a newer and stronger species of humans, which happens with however many generations or so or possibly create hostile Ai or we may devolve and kill ourselves off by our avoidance of responsibility of ourselves in all facets(the avoidance of understanding). I want you to think about the world as a whole silhouette and tell which one of these inevitable ends you see that we may be going down and why the urgency in us all may be present deep down. The counter doesn’t appear for the argument because there is no counter other than ignorance, understanding and experimentation is on a spectrum of infinity my friend but the backwards side is ignorance or a staying confined.


The will is never free from reason, but if you consciously control the reason of the will, how can the will not be free? Do you see what I am saying? You can observe the future possibilities by the use of logic/reason with this kind of power. Which people do, like the Simpsons creators and others, I whole heartedly believe humanities future will be somewhat like Futurama maybe a little less exaggerated in some aspects, call me crazy if you want. Possibilities however may not always be exact, due to a different choice or disruption in the path collectively “one person can make a difference, be the change you wish to see”.

The rabbit hole never ends.

It’s ironic I am watching the matrix while discussing this hah.

[Ecmandu]

Here's a renewed review of my argument sillouette,

Proof that freewill exists:

I define freewill and determinism by the LIMIT argument, and prove
freewill through a process of elimination!!!!!!!!!!

The LIMIT is defined thusly, this is a thought experiment:

A person knows every reason why they know what they know.

If ALL of those reasons are external to them, we can define this as
absolute determinism. In this situation, by definition, if all of
those reasons are external, it is impossible to define an internal, it
would make such a being non-sentient (also a disproof of God).

What this proves is that there is no such thing as absolute
determinism in existence.

Now!

If a person knows every reason why they know what they know,

If all of those reasons are internal for them, we can define this as
absolute freewill, the LIMIT (remember, this is a thought experiment) In this situation, by definition, this means that
such a being cannot possible abstract other with which to distinguish
self from. (also a disproof of God). Such a being, would be defined
also, as absolute chaos, which, not to be confused with the concept of
complexity, is by definition, undefined. If you can define chaos, it
is no longer chaos, but rather… complexity.

What we know from this is that there is neither absolute freewill, nor
absolute determinism.

In terms of proving freewill through a process of elimination, we can
define freewill by the remainder of a lack of 100% possible
determinism.

However, this necessary space which is a lack of determinism (it has
to be something else besides determinism), can besides freewill, be
filled with chaos.

But as we remember from before: chaos is undefined, or rather, to the
extent that we define chaos as undefined, chaos does not allow, by
this definition, the capacity to define identity, and it is self
evident, that we have identity.

So, we can determine from self evident identity, that chaos cannot
fill the gap of a necessary lack of determinism, we know that this
space is less than absolute determinism, but greater than chaos. This
persistence of identity, this object permanence of self, through a
process of elimination, only leaves us with freewill as the remainder.

This argues compatibalism. Freewill and determinism co-existing, this
is distinct from the compatibalism of determinism and chaos.

The proof for freewill to any measure whatsoever, disproves God.

There are actually two proof in here: God cannot exist, and freewill
must exist as a leftover from the proof that absolute determinism
cannot exist.

These and defined eliminatively from LIMIT proofs.

I can easily demonstrate that morality is objective and can only exist
if god doesn't exist, and I'm prepared to debate this with proofs
through contradiction.

So heres the other counter argument people use against my proof.

The closer you look at self, self doesn't really exist.

To this I reply:

Self, like everything, in nature, exists in what I call a "sweet spot
of perceptual acuity"

What I mean by this, is that if you take a microscope to a tree, it
will no longer look anything like a tree. If you are 40 miles away,
you won't even see a tree. Neither of these perceptual acuity aspects
deny the trees existence.

It's the same for identity, yes, the closer you look at it, it ceases
to exist, this is also true the further away you look at identity.

This NEVER negates that identity exists though. Just like it never
negates that the tree exists.

Examining identity closer to determine that it doesn't exist, is not
the MOST REAL interpretation, it is just one of three, equal
interpretations, one is not deeper or more profound than the other,
and one does not negate the other two.

There's an even simpler disproof of god than this:

If you simply look into yourself and state, "this is currently violating my consent" then god doesn't exist.

[Silhouette]

Sillouette,

In using LIMITS!!! I'm defining freewill BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION!!!

I'm fulfilling your requests.

I'm not seeing a definition... I gave you one last chance and you blew it.

Internal to what? An example: a balloon. There is air inside the balloon: internal, and air outside the balloon: external. Another example: a box. There is a space bounded by the sides of the box, its top and its bottom: some volume of matter may be within these bounds: internal, and some outside: external. If 100% of space was outside the box, there would be no box, here I'm talking about a box, internal or external to a box. How are you defining internal/external here, Ecmandu? Well, Silhouette, I mean internal/external to a box. Thank you, Ecmandu for answering my simple question. No problem, Silhouette.

But the closest we get is implied by this:

If ALL of those reasons are external to them, we can define this as
absolute determinism. In this situation, by definition, if all of
those reasons are external, it is impossible to define an internal, it
would make such a being non-sentient (also a disproof of God).

Major premise 1: Absolute Determinism ⇔ ∀external
Major premise 2: ∀external ⇔ ¬(∀internal)
Minor premise: ¬(∀internal) → ¬(sentience)
Conclusion: Absolute Determinism → ¬(sentience)
Modus Tollens: sentience → ¬(Absolute Determinism)

So are you saying "internal" and "external" are mutually exclusive, relatively bounded by the limits of sentience? This kind of thing was what I was ready to assume back in my first post, but wanted confirmation, since if this is how you're using internal and external, especially if said sentience is "of a being", then we find ourselves directly in the realm of identity, which was the whole reason I went off on issues with identity, because it directly affects the soundness of your minor premise. The validity of the argument as I just syllogised it still doesn't make the argument true if it is unsound.

Your response is to say it means squat that identity cannot be found upon closer examination, and that's true of everything:

Self, like everything, in nature, exists in what I call a "sweet spot
of perceptual acuity"

What I mean by this, is that if you take a microscope to a tree, it
will no longer look anything like a tree. If you are 40 miles away,
you won't even see a tree. Neither of these perceptual acuity aspects
deny the trees existence.

It's the same for identity, yes, the closer you look at it, it ceases
to exist, this is also true the further away you look at identity.

This NEVER negates that identity exists though. Just like it never
negates that the tree exists.

Examining identity closer to determine that it doesn't exist, is not
the MOST REAL interpretation, it is just one of three, equal
interpretations, one is not deeper or more profound than the other,
and one does not negate the other two.

Your example of a tree is a poor one. Reason being that a tree can be consistently defined over a wide range of points of perception - and zooming in only enables us to define a tree in even more detail.

Identity however can only be defined loosely from a very narrow range of points of perception, and outside of that not at all. Unlike the tree, zooming in causes it to fall apart.

Your conflation doesn't absolve identity. I'd ask you to try again, but I fear having to deal with the frustration of the consequences.

Please stop reiterating your argument by the way, I know I asked for your proofs earlier, but I didn't mean the same one several times. After the first time you gave it, I was trying to get to the specific semantics of it, another overview was the opposite of what I was asking for.
And stop making it longer, cut it down to its simplest form as I just did with my syllogism.

And please stop equating chaos with free will, chaos is free but it is not will - how can chaos have a will? A rhetorical question, I don't want to encourage any further waffling: precise brevity only, if anything at all.

[Ecmandu]

Really?

An electron microscope allows us to define a tree in more detail from say, a human or a car?

Electrons are different in trees than humans?

I have a proof through contradiction.

You're waffling here.

I'm defining internal and external through the limit.

Defining internal and external of sentience is no easy task. I performed the task, by defining it through eleimination from the limit.

That's enough to satisfy the definition.

Things outside our control

Things within our control

[Silhouette]

Really?

An electron microscope allows us to define a tree in more detail from say, a human or a car?

Electrons are different in trees than humans?

I have a proof through contradiction.

<sigh> Electrons come in arrangements, which are different in trees, humans, cars etc.
Identity has no electrons... or anything really.

You're waffling here.

You know what waffling means, right? If you think syllogism is waffle then I think we're about done here, don't you?

I'm defining internal and external through the limit.

Ha. You said that, given min/max% internal and external, contradiction => Compatibilism.
The argument defines Compatibilism by means of internal and external. If internal and external aren't sound then the argument is no different from "% cat and license => Compatibilism" and saying you've defined cats and licenses by this argument.

At this point I really don't expect you to understand basic logical form.

Defining internal and external of sentience is no easy task. I performed the task, by defining it through eleimination from the limit.

That's enough to satisfy the definition.

You're damn right it's no easy task - because it's not a possible task, which is the whole point and it's why your argument doesn't hold.

You obviously don't know what the definition of definition is. You think proof by contradiction is definition of your terms. To use Sam Harris's phrase, I'm playing chess with a pigeon here.

Things outside our control

Things within our control

Is this the definition finally?

Internal: things with our control
External: things outside our control
?

Again we run up against issues of identity: "our" control. No identity means no "our".
And control? This implies causal order i.e. Determinism.

As I expected, identity defies definition and falls apart, yet it's a requirement for anything more than 0% Free Will. And control is Determinism.

I think that pretty much closes the door on this one. Determinism it is. Free Will doesn't exist.

I'm glad we had this little chat.

[Ecmandu]

Really?

An electron microscope allows us to define a tree in more detail from say, a human or a car?

Electrons are different in trees than humans?

I have a proof through contradiction.

<sigh> Electrons come in arrangements, which are different in trees, humans, cars etc.
Identity has no electrons... or anything really.

You're waffling here.

You know what waffling means, right? If you think syllogism is waffle then I think we're about done here, don't you?

I'm defining internal and external through the limit.

Ha. You said that, given min/max% internal and external, contradiction => Compatibilism.
The argument defines Compatibilism by means of internal and external. If internal and external aren't sound then the argument is no different from "% cat and license => Compatibilism" and saying you've defined cats and licenses by this argument.

At this point I really don't expect you to understand basic logical form.

Defining internal and external of sentience is no easy task. I performed the task, by defining it through eleimination from the limit.

That's enough to satisfy the definition.

You're damn right it's no easy task - because it's not a possible task, which is the whole point and it's why your argument doesn't hold.

You obviously don't know what the definition of definition is. You think proof by contradiction is definition of your terms. To use Sam Harris's phrase, I'm playing chess with a pigeon here.

Things outside our control

Things within our control

Is this the definition finally?

Internal: things with our control
External: things outside our control
?

Again we run up against issues of identity: "our" control. No identity means no "our".
And control? This implies causal order i.e. Determinism.

As I expected, identity defies definition and falls apart, yet it's a requirement for anything more than 0% Free Will. And control is Determinism.

I think that pretty much closes the door on this one. Determinism it is. Free Will doesn't exist.

I'm glad we had this little chat.

Now you're being an ass. A single electron is not an "arrangement". You know that's what I meant. Your arguing with oppositional defiant disorder just for the sake of arguing counter.

I presented a logical proof that 100% determinism is impossible. If it's impossible, then you have to agree that another factor is at play. You offered chaos, but retreated when you found out that's not possible.