Freewill exists

[Silhouette]

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?

Yes I see what you are saying just the same as I did before. The thing is the will "is you", it's not yours. If anything, will is free "from you" and your ownership and control of it. And by the will "being you", I'm not validating identity - I'm just saying that the invalid notion of identity is more a result of will than will is a result of identity. You "get to know someone" by learning what they want/don't want. Free Will is mistaking cause for consequence. Will is a result of influence on a mind that you didn't freely will to be born with.

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.

It's ironic that in an episode of Futurama, the professor invents a machine that tells you when you're going to die, and quips something like "it's occassionally off by a few seconds, what with Free Will and all". So even the show you praise for its vision of the future where we have all our learning ahead of us is against you, and perhaps I am with you in hoping the future is somewhat like Futurama where ideas like Free Will are put in their place.

You can observe the future possibilities by the use of logic/reason with this kind of power.

By the power of Determinism, you sure can.

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

Great film.

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.

And yet a single electron is an arrangement of quarks, and presumably so on from there...
The problem is that I do know what you meant.
I'm arguing with frustration that you don't know basic logical method.
Logical proof must be sound as well as valid.
Chaos is perfectly possible.
It's been fun, thanks.

[Ecmandu]

Sillouette!! Absolute freewill and chaos solve as the same thing.

Now, you're just confused sillouette!!!

You're arguing absolute chaos but no freewill.

I actually don't think you understand this discussion that we're having, despite your protest that you understand it too well.

What about two single quarks ?? Etc...

You're really not making sense here!!

[Artimas]

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?

Yes I see what you are saying just the same as I did before. The thing is the will "is you", it's not yours. If anything, will is free "from you" and your ownership and control of it. And by the will "being you", I'm not validating identity - I'm just saying that the invalid notion of identity is more a result of will than will is a result of identity. You "get to know someone" by learning what they want/don't want. Free Will is mistaking cause for consequence. Will is a result of influence on a mind that you didn't freely will to be born with.

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.

It's ironic that in an episode of Futurama, the professor invents a machine that tells you when you're going to die, and quips something like "it's occassionally off by a few seconds, what with Free Will and all". So even the show you praise for its vision of the future where we have all our learning ahead of us is against you, and perhaps I am with you in hoping the future is somewhat like Futurama where ideas like Free Will are put in their place.

You can observe the future possibilities by the use of logic/reason with this kind of power.

By the power of Determinism, you sure can.

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

Great film.

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.

And yet a single electron is an arrangement of quarks, and presumably so on from there...
The problem is that I do know what you meant.
I'm arguing with frustration that you don't know basic logical method.
Logical proof must be sound as well as valid.
Chaos is perfectly possible.
It's been fun, thanks.

The reason why is because people choose determinism instead of the dark unknown and expanding of themself. Comfort is easier than struggle and learning. The odds would be higher than a few seconds I would imagine, not everyone is the same and some are more spontaneous than others, less predictable based off how much they understand. A lot of the people in futurama were also dumb, just like in this society, the future becomes predictable when’s you have fools running it, since fools are easily predictable. Show me a fool who wins at chess and how do you win at chess? By being strategic? And how is one strategic if only determinism exists? How is it there is a higher and a lower of consciousness and will?

I would say it is not yet free but it is a pursuit in freeing it, whole point of consciousness and why they wrote the religious texts. A guide of such, not to be trapped by desires and to seek answers by thinking to oneself.

Ones intent creates their experience. So if you have no intention of freeing your will and you are comfortable in your answer then that is what you will see. I have been on the determinism side, if you want to take a look at my posts you would see that I have argued for that side as well, so how is it we can understand both sides if only one side exists?

[Prismatic567]

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.

Are you familiar with impulse control technique, mindfulness, NLP and the likes.
These techniques help a person to manage and be control of their thoughts, thus give them a sense of conscious free willing.
This a sense of 'free will' but it is limited thus not absolute or complete free will.

If you agree there is no absolute or complete free will, to be more precise and avoid confusion, then you adopted a change to the OP as;

"Relative Freewill Exists not Absolute Freewill"

Such is necessary because the term 'Freewill' is a very loose terms and often caused confusions.

[Artimas]

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.

Are you familiar with impulse control technique, mindfulness, NLP and the likes.
These techniques help a person to manage and be control of their thoughts, thus give them a sense of conscious free willing.
This a sense of 'free will' but it is limited thus not absolute or complete free will.

If you agree there is no absolute or complete free will, to be more precise and avoid confusion, then you adopted a change to the OP as;

"Relative Freewill Exists not Absolute Freewill"

Such is necessary because the term 'Freewill' is a very loose terms and often caused confusions.

I am not yet in a full state of understanding of which I may predict or deduce the end game when we are confined to a moment in time of which is barely progressing due to the collective state of humanity and the majorities disinterest in themselves and the pursuit of education in and of reality.

If I am not in a full state of understanding all that is and will be then I am not in a state of absolute free will, however I do think an absolute free will can exist to the extent of what is currently available in terms of understanding, if that makes sense.

It’s like climbing a ladder with others behind you/below you climbing, so you’re at a higher will, their ego festering prevents you from going up further due to the disorganization of mankind collectively, like them pulling your foot down while you try to go up.

More people who understand to the full extent of what they can = new ideas and new solutions = evolution. We need the full spectrum of understanding, the speed of our evolution depends upon the spectrum and how many do understand.

There are points of what may be considered “absolute” free will but it is not free from yet again, another step higher which is the “lesser” and “higher” will or consciousness that we may observe. I am not sure if knowledge or understanding ends but it seems to be infinite, so the infinity is the absolute will, the freedom comes with what one values. A lesser will or a higher.

So the answer in my eyes, is not if an absolute free will exists but if that absolute free will is attainable by us.

[Silhouette]

Who is talking about absolute chaos?

given indeterminacy, its effects are only going to be extremely marginal - this is the opposite of me speaking of absolute chaos!
[...]
Still no absolute chaos.

I'm calling straw man.

You're arguing absolute chaos but no freewill.

I actually don't think you understand this discussion that we're having

The reason why is because people choose determinism instead of the dark unknown and expanding of themself. Comfort is easier than struggle and learning. The odds would be higher than a few seconds I would imagine, not everyone is the same and some are more spontaneous than others, less predictable based off how much they understand. A lot of the people in futurama were also dumb, just like in this society, the future becomes predictable when’s you have fools running it, since fools are easily predictable. Show me a fool who wins at chess and how do you win at chess? By being strategic? And how is one strategic if only determinism exists? How is it there is a higher and a lower of consciousness and will?

I would say it is not yet free but it is a pursuit in freeing it, whole point of consciousness and why they wrote the religious texts. A guide of such, not to be trapped by desires and to seek answers by thinking to oneself.

Ones intent creates their experience. So if you have no intention of freeing your will and you are comfortable in your answer then that is what you will see. I have been on the determinism side, if you want to take a look at my posts you would see that I have argued for that side as well, so how is it we can understand both sides if only one side exists?

I don't resolve that Determinism is the case out of comfort, I do it out of cold reasoning - in fact it is this very same mechanical and inescapable reasoning that is Determinism. I can see what you mean though, that the predictability that Determinism allows you mitigates fear of the unknown, but this emotional benefit is not my interest - the reason it provides such predictability is testament to its applicability and truth to reality. Free Will: "who knows what the future will bring?" - where are the grounds to test this? Knowledge requires falsifiability: control conditions and observe the future outcome as with the Scientific Method - what determines what? Free Will is an observation of how only the present seems - that is how "we can understanding both sides if only one side exists" - it's the same reason we can understand being fooled by an optical illusion. Apply the Scientific Method and Determinism and you uncover the illusion.

I can intend to free my will all I like, and I do, and still Determinism is inescapable: it's not a question of which one I would prefer emotionally, or which one I am aiming for, it's that regardless of any of this, Determinism holds despite best efforts. I don't "desire to be trapped from seeking answers by thinking to myself" - we all just are, as soon as we look into it and uncover the illusions. Seeking knowledge is self-fulfillingly deterministic by the very nature of seeking knowledge at all - it is the seeking of knowledge.

The whole point of the Scientific method is to retain an open mind and do one's best to disprove leading theories, which is what I'm trying to say I do, and yet some theories just won't be shaken. Strategy/not being a fool - all this fits in with Determinism. A fool can't or won't follow the reasoning and causation and gets caught out. The strategist is better at determining outcomes and is determined to do so. Struggle and learning just makes you better at determining, and realising that it is this Determinism that you uncover that determined you to partake in this struggle and learning in the first place.

It's funny how quickly you turned on Futurama btw

[Ecmandu]

Ok silluoutte,

Let's back up there. I used absolute chaos incorrectly with respect to your argument.

I was equivocating (the small portion left over from the remainder was chaos to you - I called that absolute chaos - rather than your correct meaning, that absolute chaos means that everything is chaos!)

So to clear this up, I'll argue that chaos (not absolute chaos) is your remainder. Chaos (not complexity) is defined as undefined.

I said that the remainder was freewill, you said that it was undefined. However, you didn't even approach or even try a proof that proved that the remainder was undefined. You're simply asserting it without evidence and then saying "determinism it is!"

What do you really think the remainder is?

We know it can't be 100% determinism, through the limit thought experiment of "out of our control"

So what do you think that remainder is?

[Ecmandu]

Ok silluoutte,

Let's back up there. I used absolute chaos incorrectly with respect to your argument.

I was equivocating (the small portion left over from the remainder was chaos to you - I called that absolute chaos - rather than your correct meaning, that absolute chaos means that everything is chaos!)

So to clear this up, I'll argue that chaos (not absolute chaos) is your remainder. Chaos (not complexity) is defined as undefined.

I said that the remainder was freewill, you said that it was undefined. However, you didn't even approach or even try a proof that proved that the remainder was undefined. You're simply asserting it without evidence and then saying "determinism it is!"

What do you really think the remainder is?

We know it can't be 100% determinism, through the limit thought experiment of "out of our control"

So what do you think that remainder is?

Let's go over this again for clarities sake:

Determinism is "out of our control"

What is the perception of "out of our control"? External to us. If we have a stroke, our body to that regard is out of our control.

I use the word reason because this is how we describe internal/external... "the reason this happened was because of x,y,z"

If those reasons are all known to be external (out of our control), then the limit is argued, by using thought (knowledge) as the core:

"Knowing every reason why you know what you know"

That's the limit.

In pure determinism at the limit: everything is external, all of those reasons of "out of my control" are outside.

What happens at this limit is that it's impossible here to perceive a self, since EVERYTHING is external!! With 0% internal.

So we know that the limit is never reached by a sentient being in order to prove this at the limit, in fact, it's impossible, the limit forces non sentience.

What we can argue here is that there must be a remainder. Is the remainder: "within our control"?

Or is the remainder "chaos"

As sillouette argues.

I argue that since chaos is undefined, that it cannot hold continuity of consciousness over time in the way that our awareness works...

The remainder then, must be, "within our control" in a manner which is compatible with "outside our control"

Which is just a fancy way of saying: freewill exists.

[Artimas]

Who is talking about absolute chaos?

given indeterminacy, its effects are only going to be extremely marginal - this is the opposite of me speaking of absolute chaos!
[...]
Still no absolute chaos.

I'm calling straw man.

You're arguing absolute chaos but no freewill.

I actually don't think you understand this discussion that we're having

The reason why is because people choose determinism instead of the dark unknown and expanding of themself. Comfort is easier than struggle and learning. The odds would be higher than a few seconds I would imagine, not everyone is the same and some are more spontaneous than others, less predictable based off how much they understand. A lot of the people in futurama were also dumb, just like in this society, the future becomes predictable when’s you have fools running it, since fools are easily predictable. Show me a fool who wins at chess and how do you win at chess? By being strategic? And how is one strategic if only determinism exists? How is it there is a higher and a lower of consciousness and will?

I would say it is not yet free but it is a pursuit in freeing it, whole point of consciousness and why they wrote the religious texts. A guide of such, not to be trapped by desires and to seek answers by thinking to oneself.

Ones intent creates their experience. So if you have no intention of freeing your will and you are comfortable in your answer then that is what you will see. I have been on the determinism side, if you want to take a look at my posts you would see that I have argued for that side as well, so how is it we can understand both sides if only one side exists?

I don't resolve that Determinism is the case out of comfort, I do it out of cold reasoning - in fact it is this very same mechanical and inescapable reasoning that is Determinism. I can see what you mean though, that the predictability that Determinism allows you mitigates fear of the unknown, but this emotional benefit is not my interest - the reason it provides such predictability is testament to its applicability and truth to reality. Free Will: "who knows what the future will bring?" - where are the grounds to test this? Knowledge requires falsifiability: control conditions and observe the future outcome as with the Scientific Method - what determines what? Free Will is an observation of how only the present seems - that is how "we can understanding both sides if only one side exists" - it's the same reason we can understand being fooled by an optical illusion. Apply the Scientific Method and Determinism and you uncover the illusion.

I can intend to free my will all I like, and I do, and still Determinism is inescapable: it's not a question of which one I would prefer emotionally, or which one I am aiming for, it's that regardless of any of this, Determinism holds despite best efforts. I don't "desire to be trapped from seeking answers by thinking to myself" - we all just are, as soon as we look into it and uncover the illusions. Seeking knowledge is self-fulfillingly deterministic by the very nature of seeking knowledge at all - it is the seeking of knowledge.

The whole point of the Scientific method is to retain an open mind and do one's best to disprove leading theories, which is what I'm trying to say I do, and yet some theories just won't be shaken. Strategy/not being a fool - all this fits in with Determinism. A fool can't or won't follow the reasoning and causation and gets caught out. The strategist is better at determining outcomes and is determined to do so. Struggle and learning just makes you better at determining, and realising that it is this Determinism that you uncover that determined you to partake in this struggle and learning in the first place.

It's funny how quickly you turned on Futurama btw

I never turned on futurama, I proposed a reality that everyone understands themself and reality as it is, which may not seem conceivable to you because it hasn’t happened and isn’t in ones normal view of happening within this lifetime. If everyone understands determinism and themself and the effects of environment upon self, one can free or trap themself by -value-. There is a higher or a lower. If there is a higher and a lower contrast to will then there is a more free and a less free. Unless you would prefer to just call it less confined.

If I am walking behind you and I see a man pull a knife out and approaching you from behind, would you attribute me in that moment to have more or less -valuable- information than you? It may not be of value to me and so I don’t tell you, you were confined by your ignorance which resulted in your death. IF I did tell you and I attributed value to your life then you would live and thank me for the information, would you not? Value plays the biggest role in information, subjectivity.. yes it is hard to take in but the empirical evidence of this is that you can observe it consistently. By being yourself at positions of ignorance and then less ignorance by your choice of ‘value’.

I’ll never turn on futurama! I am just proposing a society without fools, which one who knows how determinism works is less predictable.

It’s like determinism is becoming inverted of itself.. it’s turning inside out, conscious is determinism(subconscious) turning inside out so we may be conscious of it but if you find joy in studying determinism and you willingly consent to it, then you are /free/ in your feeling free, because you know how to attribute value and care properly to satisfy yourself without doing harm. One can become less trapped. One can choose to abuse such or which traps one goes into. So if one can choose and understands the trap for what it is, how is it a trap? The consent is in the staying alive, the value.

The freedom or confinement comes from the value. Ones man hell is another man’s paradise, this is why this is the way it is. Freedom usually comes from acceptance or forgiveness, does it not? Why does it grant a freeing experience? Because if one does not place value on another then they cut the source of power that individual has over the other. Same thing with forgiveness of the past and addressing it, one is not free from the past if they do not understand or accept it for what it is.

Also note how you stated ‘cold’ reasoning, that is an attributed value to reason, which reason itself is value attribution.. so that is how it may become blinding. What is “cold” to you about reasoning?

So determinism and it’s reasoning is a view point of specific value attribution upon determinism as cold, which shows the idea of it being an inescapable system or a “trap”. Pessimistic/realistic.

Free will is an idea of value attribution of which is the opposite to determinism being a trap, due to the understanding of how ‘value’ functions. Optimistic/realistic

It’s a matter of your personal value of which shows which side to you personally. If I don’t see it as a trap, am I still trapped? What is possible within determinism is an infinite amount of possibilities, which show how large the “trap” or system is.

[Silhouette]

I never turned on futurama, I proposed a reality that everyone understands themself and reality as it is, which may not seem conceivable to you because it hasn’t happened and isn’t in ones normal view of happening within this lifetime. If everyone understands determinism and themself and the effects of environment upon self, one can free or trap themself by -value-. There is a higher or a lower. If there is a higher and a lower contrast to will then there is a more free and a less free. Unless you would prefer to just call it less confined.

If I am walking behind you and I see a man pull a knife out and approaching you from behind, would you attribute me in that moment to have more or less -valuable- information than you? It may not be of value to me and so I don’t tell you, you were confined by your ignorance which resulted in your death. IF I did tell you and I attributed value to your life then you would live and thank me for the information, would you not? Value plays the biggest role in information, subjectivity.. yes it is hard to take in but the empirical evidence of this is that you can observe it consistently. By being yourself at positions of ignorance and then less ignorance by your choice of ‘value’.

I’ll never turn on futurama! I am just proposing a society without fools, which one who knows how determinism works is less predictable.

It’s like determinism is becoming inverted of itself.. it’s turning inside out, conscious is determinism(subconscious) turning inside out so we may be conscious of it but if you find joy in studying determinism and you willingly consent to it, then you are /free/ in your feeling free, because you know how to attribute value and care properly to satisfy yourself without doing harm. One can become less trapped. One can choose to abuse such or which traps one goes into. So if one can choose and understands the trap for what it is, how is it a trap? The consent is in the staying alive, the value.

If you wanna say it might look like there is categorically no Free Will at this point in history, but you're willing to keep an open mind that evidence/argument may pop up some time in future, then fine. One day the effects of gravity might change or disappear and we'd be trapped in our previous mindsets if we refused to move from treating it the same as before - sure. There might be some extra dimension of thought that has occurred to nobody yet that gets Free Will back off the hook - okay. I'm not expecting these things to happen but I'm not going to bury my head in the sand if they do. Determinism isn't trapping me, it's just describing everything in everybody's life right now and I'm respecting that.

I'm glad you have maintained your loyalty to Futurama.

Ok silluoutte,

Let's back up there. I used absolute chaos incorrectly with respect to your argument.

I was equivocating (the small portion left over from the remainder was chaos to you - I called that absolute chaos - rather than your correct meaning, that absolute chaos means that everything is chaos!)

Thank you.

So to clear this up, I'll argue that chaos (not absolute chaos) is your remainder. Chaos (not complexity) is defined as undefined.

This is what I was saying. And even that, tentatively so - my point is that if (big if) there is a remainder, it's not free will, it's some degree of indeterminacy. You don't like this idea of no remainder, I do, because your "proof" depends on an internal and external to sentience, which is dependent upon identity, which cannot be defined to any satisfactory defree, like a tree, car or human can. So if the concepts that ground your argument don't hold up, the argument that's built on them doesn't hold up.

I said that the remainder was freewill, you said that it was undefined. However, you didn't even approach or even try a proof that proved that the remainder was undefined. You're simply asserting it without evidence and then saying "determinism it is!"

What do you really think the remainder is?

We know it can't be 100% determinism, through the limit thought experiment of "out of our control"

So what do you think that remainder is?

I'm not trying to prove that the remainder is undefined, I'm just saying "if" there is a remainder it's indeterminacy. What I did "approach or even try" was to disprove your argument that there has to be a remainder (hence your conclusion of Compatibilism). If there is no remainder then there is no Compatibilism. That's all I'm doing. I'm reading your opening post and critiquing it. "Determinism it is" because arguments for a remainder are invalid - that's all I'm saying.

You need to define the identity behind the sentience behind the external/internal divide, behind your argument for Compatibilism. And I don't mean by vaguely conflating it with clearly definable things like trees, cars and humans, on the grounds that definition gets hard when you're only ever really far away or really close. Clearly definable things are clearly definable from many perspectives in between, and getting closer tends to build on these perspectives for as long as particles are constituted of smaller particles - but if there's a limit there, then yes, going further sheds no further light on otherwise clearly definable things just as much as it sheds no further light on identity. But if you have to push things to extreme conditions just to say "look, now they're the same" then you know you're clutching at straws... which is the whole point of what I said in my first post. I lead you to a trap "define identity or your argument is unfounded", and asked you if you wanted to fall into it, or withdraw your argument.

Let's go over this again for clarities sake:

Determinism is "out of our control"

What is the perception of "out of our control"? External to us. If we have a stroke, our body to that regard is out of our control.

I use the word reason because this is how we describe internal/external... "the reason this happened was because of x,y,z"

If those reasons are all known to be external (out of our control), then the limit is argued, by using thought (knowledge) as the core:

"Knowing every reason why you know what you know"

That's the limit.

In pure determinism at the limit: everything is external, all of those reasons of "out of my control" are outside.

What happens at this limit is that it's impossible here to perceive a self, since EVERYTHING is external!! With 0% internal.

So we know that the limit is never reached by a sentient being in order to prove this at the limit, in fact, it's impossible, the limit forces non sentience.

What we can argue here is that there must be a remainder. Is the remainder: "within our control"?

Or is the remainder "chaos"

As sillouette argues.

I argue that since chaos is undefined, that it cannot hold continuity of consciousness over time in the way that our awareness works...

The remainder then, must be, "within our control" in a manner which is compatible with "outside our control"

Which is just a fancy way of saying: freewill exists.

The language here is much of the problem. "Control" has agency already loaded within it, so using it to back up the agency of Free Will is circular.

All control really is is the ability to follow what's determining what. The extra information causes you make better choices, assuming you were determined to heed the extra information and take it into account, and assuming you were determined to be inclined to use such information.

Control is the foundation of your newest argument here, and like identity, it can be picked apart and undone as a foundation to your overall argument. If control is dubious, as I've shown it to be, again the internal/external distinction is unfounded. Free will does not exist.

[Ecmandu]

Silluoutte,

We both made very long arguments previous to this.

Let's make these posts short to understand our positions on a very critical matter:

You have argued that it's not an issue that identity cannot be at the limits, not because that's not true, but because identity doesn't exist at all?

Is that your main argument?

Do you actually believe that?

[Silhouette]

Silluoutte,

We both made very long arguments previous to this.

Let's make these posts short to understand our positions on a very critical matter:

You have argued that it's not an issue that identity cannot be at the limits, not because that's not true, but because identity doesn't exist at all?

Is that your main argument?

Do you actually believe that?

It's an illusion, like Free Will, so its existence can be "in your mind" just like the results of optical illusions. You can think you have identity, you can think you have control and agency - it feels real, but so do dreams and hallucinations. I mean identity is basically written into the semantics of language itself: <pronoun subject identity> + <predicate>.

But do they actually exist? No, I believe they do not. It's a mish-mash of consistencies over time at best.

[Artimas]

Individual Life is an illusion in whole, so I don’t quite understand the argument of freewill being an illusion. Consciousness is obviously real and determinism is obviously real, value is obviously real and contrast, higher and lower is real and if value, contrast and consciousness are real than how can freewill be an illusion?

Individual life is temporary, which an illusion is temporary.. we all stem from a one thing, which the one thing is not temporary and it is the system of which you describe as determinism yet consciousness evolved out of full determinism which was when we were subconscious animals and trapped by instinct completely, the consciousness and our ability to value is the freedom of the will of which one may use or dismiss, it is the loop of which has no closing end, due to knowledge and understanding never running out. What seems cold to you in the form of reason, from my personal experience the truth seems bitter until understood, then one feels ‘responsible’ for reason, instead of reason being ‘cold’.


Reality is the dream, the present moment is what makes it seem like it is not. The confinement to a present moment ‘is’ the illusion... a freewill is when one understands the effects(future) of the cause(past). So how can one be in a trap or determined future if the individual knowingly is the cause and effect. Is that not an example of freewill by using determinism?

No one is free of the game, what you are free in, is how you play it.

[Ecmandu]

Silluoutte,

We both made very long arguments previous to this.

Let's make these posts short to understand our positions on a very critical matter:

You have argued that it's not an issue that identity cannot be at the limits, not because that's not true, but because identity doesn't exist at all?

Is that your main argument?

Do you actually believe that?

It's an illusion, like Free Will, so its existence can be "in your mind" just like the results of optical illusions. You can think you have identity, you can think you have control and agency - it feels real, but so do dreams and hallucinations. I mean identity is basically written into the semantics of language itself: <pronoun subject identity> + <predicate>.

But do they actually exist? No, I believe they do not. It's a mish-mash of consistencies over time at best.

Silluoutte,

So this is my reply to you about identity, aside from the perceptual acuity argument where I said that one wasn't better than the other.

If I walk with you on a sidewalk, and I point to a tree, and I say that this tree is cool... check it out!

I have agreed to three things:

I exist
You exist
The tree exists

If I thought identity was just an illusion, to not be a hypocrite (logically non contradictarily consistent) (logic) I would necessarily restrain from doing any of this.

But I do it and you do it.

My take on this is that you are a "don't judge me as I do, but what I say"

Your actions betray you.

[Silhouette]

Individual Life is an illusion in whole, so I don’t quite understand the argument of freewill being an illusion. Consciousness is obviously real and determinism is obviously real, value is obviously real and contrast, higher and lower is real and if value, contrast and consciousness are real than how can freewill be an illusion?

Individual life is temporary, which an illusion is temporary.. we all stem from a one thing, which the one thing is not temporary and it is the system of which you describe as determinism yet consciousness evolved out of full determinism which was when we were subconscious animals and trapped by instinct completely, the consciousness and our ability to value is the freedom of the will of which one may use or dismiss, it is the loop of which has no closing end, due to knowledge and understanding never running out. What seems cold to you in the form of reason, from my personal experience the truth seems bitter until understood, then one feels ‘responsible’ for reason, instead of reason being ‘cold’.


Reality is the dream, the present moment is what makes it seem like it is not. The confinement to a present moment ‘is’ the illusion... a freewill is when one understands the effects(future) of the cause(past). So how can one be in a trap or determined future if the individual knowingly causes the an effect. Is that not an example of freewill by using determinism?

No one is free of the game, what you are free in, is how you play it.

If "individual life" is an illusion in whole as you accept, there is no "living individual" to "freely will". Free Will requires an individual free from Determinism to step into the causal chain and potentially change it so that "you could have chosen differently". Without this uninfluenced influencer that is "the self", there is no Dualistic intervention by the mind upon mechanistic matter (or however you want to partition your Dualism that separates this autonomous self from the deterministic world, which as you say is obviously real). The mind-body problem makes Dualism problematic, and I prefer a Monism of non-specific "experience" as a fundamental substance of existence. With Monism, there is no other substance that exists in this other realm that can interfere in the causal chain of Determinism without itself being determined within this causal chain of Determinism. So Free Will cannot exist, and there is only hard Determinism. Value, contrast (not sure what you mean by constrast tbh) anything you can name that holds up to the required Epistemological criteria (testability etc.) is all real within this Deterministic substrate of experience. Experience obviously encorporates consciousness, but not from a Dualistically separate substrate. The obvious problem is how a self, that is supposed to freely will, can simultaneously be uninfluenced by Determinism such that it is freely willing independently of Determinism, yet also informed by Determinism in order to interact with Determinism with a strictly one-way relationship. When you model the self that is supposed to freely will in such detail, the contradictions become clear.

That which you reason determines consequences no differently from instinct. Any given choice will only be the singular one you make whether instinctual or rational. The fact that many options occurred to you beforehand when you reasoned, and not when you chose instinctively, does not affect the fact that only one is chosen. Now add in the fact that the options that occur to you are determined by your past experiences, your current conditions and tendencies, and your capacities/abilities. Even your proclivity to go against or with your gut feeling or your reasoning, these factors are determined in just the same way. Whether it occurs to you that you could make a choice at all is determined by these conditions. You don't choose to choose to choose to choose in an infinite regress, at some point it is just determined to spring on you. The same goes for creativity - it just hits you. Each aspect you can think of in even the seemingly freest of choices is determined by something, and what you "freely choose" as a result of these determined conditions is the choice that presents itself as most preferable according to your current preferences which were in turn determined to be what they were at that time - whether contrarian or not. Each point in the process can be put down to a prior reason for it being that way, including that "free choice" of yours and the reason why you chose it. Play the game any which way, and this reality is the same. You can be knowingly conscious of it all the way through and this changes nothing - even if you think you aren't, you're just observing yourself be determined like a tv show you're fully immersed in. Feel as responsible as you like, feel as in control as you like - those feelings were determined by prior conditions, which in turn were determined by prior conditions all the way back to your birth which it's obvious you didn't choose, freely or otherwise.

Silluoutte,

So this is my reply to you about identity, aside from the perceptual acuity argument where I said that one wasn't better than the other.

If I walk with you on a sidewalk, and I point to a tree, and I say that this tree is cool... check it out!

I have agreed to three things:

I exist
You exist
The tree exists

If I thought identity was just an illusion, to not be a hypocrite (logically non contradictarily consistent) (logic) I would necessarily restrain from doing any of this.

But I do it and you do it.

My take on this is that you are a "don't judge me as I do, but what I say"

Your actions betray you.

Yes I remember the perceptual acuity argument that I thoroughly debunked.

I absolutely act as though identity exists - it's how you operate socially at this particular point in history/geography, a simplistic convenience... and it's a lie. I accept it in good faith because of its utility, but use does not mean truth. Judge me all you like, but I would rather be aware of the truth and not blinded by utility. My actions betray nothing.

I'm not telling you to believe in Determinism "because I say so", I'm saying Determinism is how things work whether I say so or not, and whether we each like it or not. I will still posit "I", "you" and "tree" because that's how humans currently socially derive meaning from the world. The word "tree" isn't the tree itself, the gesture towards the tree to learn what a tree is isn't the tree itself, the learning to follow the finger towards the tree to know what's being referred to isn't the tree. It's all a means of to get to the truth, without being truth itself. Meaning and utility are essentially useful meaningful lies. The truth is that the "head" has no distinct gap to separate it from the "neck" - it's all a continuous experience that we lie to each other is divided distinctly and discretely. This is why it's been so problematic to get AI to learn how to identify objects in a photo. You have to learn to misunderstand the continuity and lack of discrete identity in order to see the discrete and identify specific things. The meaning of language is all a lie, meaning is a means. Truth is the ends. Utility is not truth, its quite the opposite.

In a sense this may be hard to accept, but in a sense it's the easiest thing ever to accept. Think of listening to a foreign language that you don't understand. It's an indistinct stream of sounds, which you have to learn to parse into discrete words in order to understand it. This is no different than how it would have been as a baby to see the continuous experience of reality, and learn to parse it into distinct objects. What do kids constantly say? "What's that? What's that? What's that?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why? They want to learn the set of discrete events that follow along to establish what determines what. Determinism is what they learn to link the lies back together in order to get back to the continuous truth. It's the only way to derive meaning aka "knowledge" from the world, or "being", in order to get to the ends of "truth".

[Artimas]

I never turned on futurama, I proposed a reality that everyone understands themself and reality as it is, which may not seem conceivable to you because it hasn’t happened and isn’t in ones normal view of happening within this lifetime. If everyone understands determinism and themself and the effects of environment upon self, one can free or trap themself by -value-. There is a higher or a lower. If there is a higher and a lower contrast to will then there is a more free and a less free. Unless you would prefer to just call it less confined.

If I am walking behind you and I see a man pull a knife out and approaching you from behind, would you attribute me in that moment to have more or less -valuable- information than you? It may not be of value to me and so I don’t tell you, you were confined by your ignorance which resulted in your death. IF I did tell you and I attributed value to your life then you would live and thank me for the information, would you not? Value plays the biggest role in information, subjectivity.. yes it is hard to take in but the empirical evidence of this is that you can observe it consistently. By being yourself at positions of ignorance and then less ignorance by your choice of ‘value’.

I’ll never turn on futurama! I am just proposing a society without fools, which one who knows how determinism works is less predictable.

It’s like determinism is becoming inverted of itself.. it’s turning inside out, conscious is determinism(subconscious) turning inside out so we may be conscious of it but if you find joy in studying determinism and you willingly consent to it, then you are /free/ in your feeling free, because you know how to attribute value and care properly to satisfy yourself without doing harm. One can become less trapped. One can choose to abuse such or which traps one goes into. So if one can choose and understands the trap for what it is, how is it a trap? The consent is in the staying alive, the value.

If you wanna say it might look like there is categorically no Free Will at this point in history, but you're willing to keep an open mind that evidence/argument may pop up some time in future, then fine. One day the effects of gravity might change or disappear and we'd be trapped in our previous mindsets if we refused to move from treating it the same as before - sure. There might be some extra dimension of thought that has occurred to nobody yet that gets Free Will back off the hook - okay. I'm not expecting these things to happen but I'm not going to bury my head in the sand if they do. Determinism isn't trapping me, it's just describing everything in everybody's life right now and I'm respecting that.

I'm glad you have maintained your loyalty to Futurama.

Ok silluoutte,

Let's back up there. I used absolute chaos incorrectly with respect to your argument.

I was equivocating (the small portion left over from the remainder was chaos to you - I called that absolute chaos - rather than your correct meaning, that absolute chaos means that everything is chaos!)

Thank you.

So to clear this up, I'll argue that chaos (not absolute chaos) is your remainder. Chaos (not complexity) is defined as undefined.

This is what I was saying. And even that, tentatively so - my point is that if (big if) there is a remainder, it's not free will, it's some degree of indeterminacy. You don't like this idea of no remainder, I do, because your "proof" depends on an internal and external to sentience, which is dependent upon identity, which cannot be defined to any satisfactory defree, like a tree, car or human can. So if the concepts that ground your argument don't hold up, the argument that's built on them doesn't hold up.

I said that the remainder was freewill, you said that it was undefined. However, you didn't even approach or even try a proof that proved that the remainder was undefined. You're simply asserting it without evidence and then saying "determinism it is!"

What do you really think the remainder is?

We know it can't be 100% determinism, through the limit thought experiment of "out of our control"

So what do you think that remainder is?

I'm not trying to prove that the remainder is undefined, I'm just saying "if" there is a remainder it's indeterminacy. What I did "approach or even try" was to disprove your argument that there has to be a remainder (hence your conclusion of Compatibilism). If there is no remainder then there is no Compatibilism. That's all I'm doing. I'm reading your opening post and critiquing it. "Determinism it is" because arguments for a remainder are invalid - that's all I'm saying.

You need to define the identity behind the sentience behind the external/internal divide, behind your argument for Compatibilism. And I don't mean by vaguely conflating it with clearly definable things like trees, cars and humans, on the grounds that definition gets hard when you're only ever really far away or really close. Clearly definable things are clearly definable from many perspectives in between, and getting closer tends to build on these perspectives for as long as particles are constituted of smaller particles - but if there's a limit there, then yes, going further sheds no further light on otherwise clearly definable things just as much as it sheds no further light on identity. But if you have to push things to extreme conditions just to say "look, now they're the same" then you know you're clutching at straws... which is the whole point of what I said in my first post. I lead you to a trap "define identity or your argument is unfounded", and asked you if you wanted to fall into it, or withdraw your argument.

Let's go over this again for clarities sake:

Determinism is "out of our control"

What is the perception of "out of our control"? External to us. If we have a stroke, our body to that regard is out of our control.

I use the word reason because this is how we describe internal/external... "the reason this happened was because of x,y,z"

If those reasons are all known to be external (out of our control), then the limit is argued, by using thought (knowledge) as the core:

"Knowing every reason why you know what you know"

That's the limit.

In pure determinism at the limit: everything is external, all of those reasons of "out of my control" are outside.

What happens at this limit is that it's impossible here to perceive a self, since EVERYTHING is external!! With 0% internal.

So we know that the limit is never reached by a sentient being in order to prove this at the limit, in fact, it's impossible, the limit forces non sentience.

What we can argue here is that there must be a remainder. Is the remainder: "within our control"?

Or is the remainder "chaos"

As sillouette argues.

I argue that since chaos is undefined, that it cannot hold continuity of consciousness over time in the way that our awareness works...

The remainder then, must be, "within our control" in a manner which is compatible with "outside our control"

Which is just a fancy way of saying: freewill exists.

The language here is much of the problem. "Control" has agency already loaded within it, so using it to back up the agency of Free Will is circular.

All control really is is the ability to follow what's determining what. The extra information causes you make better choices, assuming you were determined to heed the extra information and take it into account, and assuming you were determined to be inclined to use such information.

Control is the foundation of your newest argument here, and like identity, it can be picked apart and undone as a foundation to your overall argument. If control is dubious, as I've shown it to be, again the internal/external distinction is unfounded. Free will does not exist.

Every possibility is pre-determined, our freedom of will lies in the choosing of which pre-determined reality consciously, that we wish to live in, of and for, (which the possibilities are endless) one path of a continuity of predicting the effects of cause and caution/responsibility from a continually achieved understanding(s) or the second of which is a confinement to a moment of ego or being absorbed into identity/persona, which is the conscious state of being that appears as an illusion, the confinement of the ego in the present moment.

To deny that there is a self is to deny there is a subconscious which is to deny determinism because determinism (is) the subconscious/unconscious, visible in nature that determined consciousness, which now we may see the system due to that evolution, so what, do you think we are going to just cease to evolve more? You’re in for a ride my friend, strap in.

I am saying the opposite, I am saying there is a free will and “absolute” free will is the loop one decides to tread down, the pursuit of understanding and we are embedded with millions of millions of years of change instinctively reacting to understand. The only reason it is absolute is because I personally do not think that knowledge or understanding will ever cease unless one chooses for it to end by the pursuit of staying ignorant. It came out of determinism, it’s a use of determinism. The fact we can use determinism and understand it should clearly show you that we may exploit such, which we do.... all the time.. determinism is not an end to learning. It isn’t as simple as mere cause and effect, that’s why consciousness evolved because there is no end to change. Humanity on a collective level is the best bet for an attainable “absolute” free will. Due to diversity in understanding but it is also the very thing that drives it being absolute, by evolution and understanding that evolution.

It’s not describing everyone’s life, it’s describing their choices, completely different.. I could tell you you’re an ugly pos, but think differently, is that still a description of my life? Because my will is mine to control, at least value. How do you describe what one is thinking if they don’t make a choice? What if their life is their thoughts? Can you still describe their life externally? a quarter-half of ones life is unconscious or subconscious experiencing, is this just bs then? To call such is to call determinism bs, because that’s what comes from the subconscious/unconscious aspect of the world.

If I never speak and lived with you for 5 years, I guarantee you would be uncomfortable with it, know why? Because silence is unpredictable, you can’t predict my life because you do not know my thoughts. Because I have placed -value- on not sharing them with you.

Or the opposite, of how I am actually sharing my thoughts with you right now, because I do value you and am trying to show you the endless spiral that has not closed and probably won’t ever.

[Ecmandu]

silhouette wrote:

Yes I remember the perceptual acuity argument that I thoroughly debunked.

Ecmandu is replying:

You didn't debunk shit! This is the reason I called you an ass. My argument was simple: the electron from a tree (if it's not just empty space, but you actually find something), is not different than an electron from a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Then you talked about muons and bosons and prions and gluons and quarks and shit, and I said, a single instance of these elementary particles will not allow you to discern one object from the other, when compared with another particle of it's kind from a different object. THATS why I called you an ass! You knew what I was saying, and decided to ignore it. You're still using your ignoring as a "proof", which means that you're still being an ass about this. My argument is the correct one.

Silhouette wrote:

I absolutely act as though identity exists - it's how you operate socially at this particular point in history/geography, a simplistic convenience... and it's a lie. I accept it in good faith because of its utility, but use does not mean truth. Judge me all you like, but I would rather be aware of the truth and not blinded by utility. My actions betray nothing.

Ecmandu responds:

People who care about non contradiction, don't ACT!!! Their behavior is consistent with their logic!!

Silhouette wrote:

I'm not telling you to believe in Determinism "because I say so", I'm saying Determinism is how things work whether I say so or not, and whether we each like it or not. I will still posit "I", "you" and "tree" because that's how humans currently socially derive meaning from the world. The word "tree" isn't the tree itself, the gesture towards the tree to learn what a tree is isn't the tree itself, the learning to follow the finger towards the tree to know what's being referred to isn't the tree. It's all a means of to get to the truth, without being truth itself. Meaning and utility are essentially useful meaningful lies. The truth is that the "head" has no distinct gap to separate it from the "neck" - it's all a continuous experience that we lie to each other is divided distinctly and discretely. This is why it's been so problematic to get AI to learn how to identify objects in a photo. You have to learn to misunderstand the continuity and lack of discrete identity in order to see the discrete and identify specific things. The meaning of language is all a lie, meaning is a means. Truth is the ends. Utility is not truth, its quite the opposite.


Ecmandu responds:


If utility isn't truth, then why do you use it every second? What did I say, all silhouette is: "do what I say, not what I do"

Silhouette wrote:

In a sense this may be hard to accept, but in a sense it's the easiest thing ever to accept. Think of listening to a foreign language that you don't understand. It's an indistinct stream of sounds, which you have to learn to parse into discrete words in order to understand it. This is no different than how it would have been as a baby to see the continuous experience of reality, and learn to parse it into distinct objects. What do kids constantly say? "What's that? What's that? What's that?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why? They want to learn the set of discrete events that follow along to establish what determines what. Determinism is what they learn to link the lies back together in order to get back to the continuous truth. It's the only way to derive meaning aka "knowledge" from the world, or "being", in order to get to the ends of "truth".

ecmandu replies:

All I see here, is trying to get people to stop believing in a self, so that you WHO DEFINITELY BELIEVES IN A SELF!!! can do whatever they want without consequence!! Because you brainwashed everyone else!! It's a form of dominance, not truth for truths sake. Im actually starting to dislike you now. I have your number now.

[Artimas]

“What do kids constantly say? "What's that? What's that? What's that?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why?” They want to learn the set of discrete events that follow along to establish what determines what. Determinism is what they learn to link the lies back together in order to get back to the continuous truth. It's the only way to derive meaning aka "knowledge" from the world, or "being", in order to get to the ends of "truth".”

So you admit there is a continuous truth, your error is in believing truth ends. If truth ends evolution couldn’t be, end of story. Which a pursuit of this never ending truth is the free will of which is “absolute”, attainable by an individual, is a different question and theory. But the fact that I understand that change/evolution and my valuing is at an infinity, I can deduce and understand that there is in totality of all time/change, an absolute free will(pursuit of understanding) of which a single individuals will may become more free than the last(ignorance) by finding meaning(value) in the correct or right things.

If ones meaning is the pursuit of truth then they only become more free with the continuity of that of which is an understanding, which is the point I have made. Contrasts of ignorance to understanding in individuals is easily observable in society and existing.

Also it’s about deriving an understanding of and from knowledge, of which knowledge is derived from meaning(attributed value)

Knowledge of which one does not have an understanding of or if a point that is unknown exists regarding what one may think they know, is the ‘cold’ or bitter attribution to reason instead of responsibility, due to responsibility only coming from an understanding.

[Artimas]

Individual Life is an illusion in whole, so I don’t quite understand the argument of freewill being an illusion. Consciousness is obviously real and determinism is obviously real, value is obviously real and contrast, higher and lower is real and if value, contrast and consciousness are real than how can freewill be an illusion?

Individual life is temporary, which an illusion is temporary.. we all stem from a one thing, which the one thing is not temporary and it is the system of which you describe as determinism yet consciousness evolved out of full determinism which was when we were subconscious animals and trapped by instinct completely, the consciousness and our ability to value is the freedom of the will of which one may use or dismiss, it is the loop of which has no closing end, due to knowledge and understanding never running out. What seems cold to you in the form of reason, from my personal experience the truth seems bitter until understood, then one feels ‘responsible’ for reason, instead of reason being ‘cold’.


Reality is the dream, the present moment is what makes it seem like it is not. The confinement to a present moment ‘is’ the illusion... a freewill is when one understands the effects(future) of the cause(past). So how can one be in a trap or determined future if the individual knowingly causes the an effect. Is that not an example of freewill by using determinism?

No one is free of the game, what you are free in, is how you play it.

If "individual life" is an illusion in whole as you accept, there is no "living individual" to "freely will". Free Will requires an individual free from Determinism to step into the causal chain and potentially change it so that "you could have chosen differently". Without this uninfluenced influencer that is "the self", there is no Dualistic intervention by the mind upon mechanistic matter (or however you want to partition your Dualism that separates this autonomous self from the deterministic world, which as you say is obviously real). The mind-body problem makes Dualism problematic, and I prefer a Monism of non-specific "experience" as a fundamental substance of existence. With Monism, there is no other substance that exists in this other realm that can interfere in the causal chain of Determinism without itself being determined within this causal chain of Determinism. So Free Will cannot exist, and there is only hard Determinism. Value, contrast (not sure what you mean by constrast tbh) anything you can name that holds up to the required Epistemological criteria (testability etc.) is all real within this Deterministic substrate of experience. Experience obviously encorporates consciousness, but not from a Dualistically separate substrate. The obvious problem is how a self, that is supposed to freely will, can simultaneously be uninfluenced by Determinism such that it is freely willing independently of Determinism, yet also informed by Determinism in order to interact with Determinism with a strictly one-way relationship. When you model the self that is supposed to freely will in such detail, the contradictions become clear.

That which you reason determines consequences no differently from instinct. Any given choice will only be the singular one you make whether instinctual or rational. The fact that many options occurred to you beforehand when you reasoned, and not when you chose instinctively, does not affect the fact that only one is chosen. Now add in the fact that the options that occur to you are determined by your past experiences, your current conditions and tendencies, and your capacities/abilities. Even your proclivity to go against or with your gut feeling or your reasoning, these factors are determined in just the same way. Whether it occurs to you that you could make a choice at all is determined by these conditions. You don't choose to choose to choose to choose in an infinite regress, at some point it is just determined to spring on you. The same goes for creativity - it just hits you. Each aspect you can think of in even the seemingly freest of choices is determined by something, and what you "freely choose" as a result of these determined conditions is the choice that presents itself as most preferable according to your current preferences which were in turn determined to be what they were at that time - whether contrarian or not. Each point in the process can be put down to a prior reason for it being that way, including that "free choice" of yours and the reason why you chose it. Play the game any which way, and this reality is the same. You can be knowingly conscious of it all the way through and this changes nothing - even if you think you aren't, you're just observing yourself be determined like a tv show you're fully immersed in. Feel as responsible as you like, feel as in control as you like - those feelings were determined by prior conditions, which in turn were determined by prior conditions all the way back to your birth which it's obvious you didn't choose, freely or otherwise.

Silluoutte,

So this is my reply to you about identity, aside from the perceptual acuity argument where I said that one wasn't better than the other.

If I walk with you on a sidewalk, and I point to a tree, and I say that this tree is cool... check it out!

I have agreed to three things:

I exist
You exist
The tree exists

If I thought identity was just an illusion, to not be a hypocrite (logically non contradictarily consistent) (logic) I would necessarily restrain from doing any of this.

But I do it and you do it.

My take on this is that you are a "don't judge me as I do, but what I say"

Your actions betray you.

Yes I remember the perceptual acuity argument that I thoroughly debunked.

I absolutely act as though identity exists - it's how you operate socially at this particular point in history/geography, a simplistic convenience... and it's a lie. I accept it in good faith because of its utility, but use does not mean truth. Judge me all you like, but I would rather be aware of the truth and not blinded by utility. My actions betray nothing.

I'm not telling you to believe in Determinism "because I say so", I'm saying Determinism is how things work whether I say so or not, and whether we each like it or not. I will still posit "I", "you" and "tree" because that's how humans currently socially derive meaning from the world. The word "tree" isn't the tree itself, the gesture towards the tree to learn what a tree is isn't the tree itself, the learning to follow the finger towards the tree to know what's being referred to isn't the tree. It's all a means of to get to the truth, without being truth itself. Meaning and utility are essentially useful meaningful lies. The truth is that the "head" has no distinct gap to separate it from the "neck" - it's all a continuous experience that we lie to each other is divided distinctly and discretely. This is why it's been so problematic to get AI to learn how to identify objects in a photo. You have to learn to misunderstand the continuity and lack of discrete identity in order to see the discrete and identify specific things. The meaning of language is all a lie, meaning is a means. Truth is the ends. Utility is not truth, its quite the opposite.

In a sense this may be hard to accept, but in a sense it's the easiest thing ever to accept. Think of listening to a foreign language that you don't understand. It's an indistinct stream of sounds, which you have to learn to parse into discrete words in order to understand it. This is no different than how it would have been as a baby to see the continuous experience of reality, and learn to parse it into distinct objects. What do kids constantly say? "What's that? What's that? What's that?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why? They want to learn the set of discrete events that follow along to establish what determines what. Determinism is what they learn to link the lies back together in order to get back to the continuous truth. It's the only way to derive meaning aka "knowledge" from the world, or "being", in order to get to the ends of "truth".

the past only /determines/ so much as one /values/ it. That /is/ a free will. If someone hits me in the past, I do not have to let this have value over me in the later present moment of which changes... that is what determinism suggests.

“Take what is useful, discard what is not.”

Depends on how you define ‘living’ everything is in a state of vibration, aka alive.. just different levels of consciousness.. unconscious > subconscious > consciousness, each level represents a set of instinctive behavior, the gaps represent the leaps in complexity of instinctual behavior and consciousness which is the inverting of instinct, observable instinct by timeless awareness.

[Prismatic567]

I am not yet in a full state of understanding of which I may predict or deduce the end game when we are confined to a moment in time of which is barely progressing due to the collective state of humanity and the majorities disinterest in themselves and the pursuit of education in and of reality.

If I am not in a full state of understanding all that is and will be then I am not in a state of absolute free will, however I do think an absolute free will can exist to the extent of what is currently available in terms of understanding, if that makes sense.

It’s like climbing a ladder with others behind you/below you climbing, so you’re at a higher will, their ego festering prevents you from going up further due to the disorganization of mankind collectively, like them pulling your foot down while you try to go up.

More people who understand to the full extent of what they can = new ideas and new solutions = evolution. We need the full spectrum of understanding, the speed of our evolution depends upon the spectrum and how many do understand.

There are points of what may be considered “absolute” free will but it is not free from yet again, another step higher which is the “lesser” and “higher” will or consciousness that we may observe. I am not sure if knowledge or understanding ends but it seems to be infinite, so the infinity is the absolute will, the freedom comes with what one values. A lesser will or a higher.

So the answer in my eyes, is not if an absolute free will exists but if that absolute free will is attainable by us.

Note your claim of absolute free will [as with Schopenhauer'] is equivalent to claiming a square-circle exists and it will be proven to exists some day.

It is impossible for a square-circle to exists just like absolute free will.
Absolute free will is an impossibility to be real and will never be possible at all.

[Artimas]

I am not yet in a full state of understanding of which I may predict or deduce the end game when we are confined to a moment in time of which is barely progressing due to the collective state of humanity and the majorities disinterest in themselves and the pursuit of education in and of reality.

If I am not in a full state of understanding all that is and will be then I am not in a state of absolute free will, however I do think an absolute free will can exist to the extent of what is currently available in terms of understanding, if that makes sense.

It’s like climbing a ladder with others behind you/below you climbing, so you’re at a higher will, their ego festering prevents you from going up further due to the disorganization of mankind collectively, like them pulling your foot down while you try to go up.

More people who understand to the full extent of what they can = new ideas and new solutions = evolution. We need the full spectrum of understanding, the speed of our evolution depends upon the spectrum and how many do understand.

There are points of what may be considered “absolute” free will but it is not free from yet again, another step higher which is the “lesser” and “higher” will or consciousness that we may observe. I am not sure if knowledge or understanding ends but it seems to be infinite, so the infinity is the absolute will, the freedom comes with what one values. A lesser will or a higher.

So the answer in my eyes, is not if an absolute free will exists but if that absolute free will is attainable by us.

Note your claim of absolute free will [as with Schopenhauer'] is equivalent to claiming a square-circle exists and it will be proven to exists some day.

It is impossible for a square-circle to exists just like absolute free will.
Absolute free will is an impossibility to be real and will never be possible at all.

No one said anything about a square circle, both exist independent of each other and you could certainly layer them over each other if you wanted. It is not impossible to understand the future effects of a cause and to understand further ahead of that which is presently possible by a logical/reasonable deduction of what may be possible within the confines of universal law. The possibilities are endless, regardless of your square circle analogy. Especially with biology, technology, chemistry, to deny an absolute free will is to deny evolution, change... and the pursuit of understanding it.

[Prismatic567]

Silluoutte,

We both made very long arguments previous to this.

Let's make these posts short to understand our positions on a very critical matter:

You have argued that it's not an issue that identity cannot be at the limits, not because that's not true, but because identity doesn't exist at all?

Is that your main argument?

Do you actually believe that?

It's an illusion, like Free Will, so its existence can be "in your mind" just like the results of optical illusions. You can think you have identity, you can think you have control and agency - it feels real, but so do dreams and hallucinations. I mean identity is basically written into the semantics of language itself: <pronoun subject identity> + <predicate>.

But do they actually exist? No, I believe they do not. It's a mish-mash of consistencies over time at best.

It is like optical illusions but not exactly.

There are three main types of illusions, i.e.

1. Optical illusions are empirical illusions.

2. The other are logical illusions, i.e. based on fallacies.

3. The illusion of Free Will is a transcendental illusion which not easy to decipher and explain.

These illusions emerged out of the human conditions, thus has their pros and cons.
What is critical is for us to recognize them for what they are, i.e. as illusions and not take them as something real.
What pros that these illusions can bring or cons they invoked we have to deal with them in their respective contexts respectively.

[Artimas]

Silluoutte,

We both made very long arguments previous to this.

Let's make these posts short to understand our positions on a very critical matter:

You have argued that it's not an issue that identity cannot be at the limits, not because that's not true, but because identity doesn't exist at all?

Is that your main argument?

Do you actually believe that?

It's an illusion, like Free Will, so its existence can be "in your mind" just like the results of optical illusions. You can think you have identity, you can think you have control and agency - it feels real, but so do dreams and hallucinations. I mean identity is basically written into the semantics of language itself: <pronoun subject identity> + <predicate>.

But do they actually exist? No, I believe they do not. It's a mish-mash of consistencies over time at best.

It is like optical illusions but not exactly.

There are three main types of illusions, i.e.

1. Optical illusions are empirical illusions.

2. The other are logical illusions, i.e. based on fallacies.

3. The illusion of Free Will is a transcendental illusion which not easy to decipher and explain.

These illusions emerged out of the human conditions, thus has their pros and cons.
What is critical is for us to recognize them for what they are, i.e. as illusions and not take them as something real.
What pros that these illusions can bring or cons they invoked we have to deal with them in their respective contexts respectively.

If free will is an illusion prismatic then so is consciousness, because that is what is the free will, we have control over what we can/may or cannot/may not value in every present moment. I understand that any direction in which we move is a cause and the effect to come after is predetermined, but I get to value and choose which direction I move or which cause I pick while already understanding the effects.

So when you make a choice do you not root out the effects of what the possible cause may be? If you do this then it is no longer an act of predetermination because you /know/ and /understand/ what the effects are, you are aware of such. If something happens that you did not expect? That’s what /ignorance/ is and you can see it everywhere. You can see how some people have higher consciousness than others, better awareness.

Free will is a staircase but it isn’t illusion because you actually do climb and understand more. What’s wisdom and power from knowledge if it’s an illusion? The responsibility comes from the fact that we may value freely and we consciously dissect cause and effect in the moment of our choices. Dreams, intuition, etc, what are these phenomena if not transcendental effects of ones will? It’s the subconscious mind active while asleep or the dissection of a predetermination/effect. So how if we are not timeless awareness, can we tell the future by exploiting cause and effect? We may look in the past and the future as well as the present, seems pretty transcendental to me, so does a priori.

the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
synonyms: volition, independence, self-determination, self-sufficiency, autonomy, spontaneity; More

It has been argued that there is no self when there is and it is the literal reason we are all different in our perception. That’s what self is, the differentiation and unique aspect of an individual, which comes from environment and if an individual delves deep enough in his past to understand any issues if any one can discard or keep what is useful from pain or past and discard the rest of it, a detachment which is quite liberating and then one may focus on building themself, one can even change their name. No one has to live as a byproduct of being shaped by others or environment fully when one can change environment by value attribution.

[promethean75]

has been argued that there is no self when there is and it is the literal reason we are all different in our perception.

Speaking for the epiphenomenalists, what they mean is that the 'self', by which you mean 'consciousness', is an emergent property of the neural net and has no causal efficacy. It is therefore literally unable to cause a 'choice', and therefore there is no agent causation... no freewill.

One could further argue that there is no discrete 'self' anyway which can be described as anything more than a set of sensations, dispositions and behaviors. Did you watch the beetle in the box video I posted yesterday?

[Artimas]

has been argued that there is no self when there is and it is the literal reason we are all different in our perception.

Speaking for the epiphenomenalists, what they mean is that the 'self', by which you mean 'consciousness', is an emergent property of the neural net and has no causal efficacy. It is therefore literally unable to cause a 'choice', and therefore there is no agent causation... no freewill.

One could further argue that there is no discrete 'self' anyway which can be described as anything more than a set of sensations, dispositions and behaviors. Did you watch the beetle in the box video I posted yesterday?

The self isn’t the consciousness... it’s the subconscious and the effects of environment upon the conscious/subconscious of which one is born into, it is the diversity and uniqueness of ones genetic makeup and environment that creates an individual that is different from all others, genetics of course playing a role as well, the cause and effects of ones past(environment) of which may be looked back upon, reflected on to understand cause and effect, which is the creation of self.. again, use what is useful of past, discard what is not. You can exploit determinism and if you can exploit determinism to create the person you /want/ or feel one should be, then that itself is an act of some form of freedom.

It isn’t about the self making a choice itself.. it’s about dissecting self and the subconscious mind to understand it and find who you truly are and what you can be. It’s about being the self, consciously.
It doesn’t have to choose because an individual who understands self, consciously chooses for self.

Are you denying that people bury traumas and information from ones present environment that they are not fully conscious or understanding of due to their lack of capability in that present moment of their not being fully aware or ‘’matured’? (Usually children) of which this trauma or buried information can be examined and dissected at a different or later time than when it occurred? It can also be ignored, is that not a choice free to an individual?

So where does the information get buried or stored? If no separation of conscious state, subconscious(self) and the unconscious state of the mind? Which I have described are levels or layers that play into the next, consciousness being the awareness of the subconscious/unconscious aspects of the world.

I have not watched the video with the beetle yet, I will to see what you’re talking about though when I have some time on lunch. I will however state that a beetle is in the state of being subconscious, instinctual but not understanding fully of itself and environment, which is the differentiation between conscious and subconscious/unconscious, which our psyche is embedded with both, since it is connected to a string of an ever changing infinity of matter/energy and reactions, that we were not conscious of but came from.