I understand that there are many interpretations of the word free [will]. My only interest is sharing what I know to be true, ( ie., that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction than what the previous position offered). If we are compelled to choose only one alternative because the other was never a possibility once the choice was made, we could not have chosen otherwise. The definition I gave is accurate, and it IS why we don’t have free will and never did have free will since civilization began. Everything developed just the way it had to, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make huge leaps in progress.
There’s nothing more I can share with you because you will keep saying I could not not have said that. You keep circling around never wanting to hear any of the author’s proof. And yes, you could never not have answered me the way you did. We will continue to go in circles, so it’s not worth my time.
If this is how you are actually inclined to view the points I raise above, then, sure, by all means, move on.
From my frame of mind, however, you are an objectivist. It’s not what you believe is true that matters here nearly as much as that you believe it. Wholeheartedly. With nary a reservation. The whole package.
It is this part that allows you [psychologically] to anchor “I” to a font [an intellectual contraption] that enables you to, among other things, imagine a future in which mankind “progresses” to your own rendition “peace and prosperity”.
As to whether or not either one of us did in fact possess any autonomy in sustaining the exchange, how on earth would I know?
“I” am no less “fractured and fragmented” here as I am in probing human interactions in the is/ought world. There is simply far too much that I don’t know about existence, to ever lay claim to an argument such as yours.
And [in my view] it is precisely this frame of mind that you wish to avoid at all cost.
After all, I would if I could.
You just muddied the waters on every point, bringing in all sorts of stuff and not interacting with the ideas I presented. Perhaps pointing this out would make you try something else. Perhaps not. With my limited knowledge I cant know though my experience leads me to think you cant really listen or here ‘listen’ to another person at this time.0
Yes, everything is determined. yes, people blame. peacegirl thinks we will learn to not blame.
One could say that peacegirl thinks that not-blaming is catchy.
All of what you associate with that issue. And all the other problems you want to resolve, and anything that my post happens to make you think is irrelevant.
It’s like someone notes an issue in one of your posts. It’s not everything, but it’s one part. You mentioned that you weren’t sure as a pedestrian when to cross the street. They say, well, when it’s green facing you. You then post back about your bad marriage, your hemmroids, how the neighbors view you, without ever, it seems trying to show you understood the thing about the green light or you didn’t. Like interacting with the focus of the other poster. So the next step could be taken.
I promise you I did not think my post would solve all the world’s problems or all metaphysical issues or all of yours. If I point out one thing, it doesn not mean I think you should be happy or eveything is peachy. It is me trying to explain one thing.
In a determined universe you might come to change the way you post informed by this. Or you might not. In a free will universe you might change after this is pointed out, or not. You might be helped to understand what peacegirl is saying, or not.
I think you probably agree that people can change due to outside influence, since this is one of the core points you make, a la dasein. But from our perspective, we dont know when or if…
Touche! One can never know exactly what paeternal of one’s behavior is more determined then willful.
Some self determinations are so subtly learned that they have become rote. Here I am using that word again.
From the sense of the blank slate, determination has to source from an individual beginning, an example of that is the child on the balcony, who at one point sees through the transparent floor/foundation. His realization of depth, is a new attribution toward the birth of symbolism. Very closely aligned is the famous Narcissus Myth, and related to that are their symbolic repressions .
Okay, note the most egregious example of this from my post above.
Again, from my frame of mind, it is less what she thinks is true in a universe where [u]every[/u]thing is determined, and more whether she was ever able to not think it.
Is this exchange itself included in everything? If so then what does it really mean to blame here? How is blaming not just another manifestation of nature having evolved into minds precipitating consequences precipitating blaming that must ever and always be in sync with the laws of matter?
She seems to blames me here in the manner in which the free will folks blame others when they are convinced that blame is an appropriate choice to make in an autonomous world.
One could say lots of things. But is one free to say that what one says is not the only thing that one was ever able to say in any particular context, at any particular time?
Who comes closer to pinning that down — peacegirl pontificating about what she thinks is true “in her head”, or neurologists actually performing experiments involving the functioning human brain?
Are these experiences not in themselves inherently, necessarily embedded in a wholly determined universe?
It’s not what steps can be taken but whether you are ever able to choose – to choose freely – not to take them.
And here I just don’t know. Again, I am drawn and quartered. Those who embrace hard determinism, those who embrace the broadest interpretation of human freedom: they are both able to make convincing arguments: debate.org/opinions/does-free-will-exist
What I am most uncertain about here are the arguments of the so-called “compatibilists”. Those who make that crucial distinction between mindful matter choosing to make a move in a chess match and the pieces themselves [mindless matter] unable to choose at all.
Like somehow that’s “better” for us than the position of the hardcore determinists. Meanwhile in “choosing” to move a piece, I am never able to actually do this freely. I do only what I must. But then settle for the illusion of psychological freedom.
You “promise” this in the manner in which a free-will advocate would. Or so it seems to me.
You “try to explain” this in a world where the explanation itself is necessarily embedded in “everything being determined”.
Yet somehow [it seems] you able to convince yourself that your explanation is better than mine. Even though both explanations are but an inherent manifestation of matter unfolding into the only future possible given the immutable laws of matter.
Yes, in a determined universe, I might come to choose an explanation more in sync with peacegirls. Yet, in the manner in which I have come to understand determinism, I would really only “choose” this.
Those autonomous aliens, however, would know full well the crucial distinction, right? For all practical purposes for example.
Okay, but how broadly do you wish to encompass “outside influences”? In the is/ought world, given some measure of human autonomy, those outside influences would [in my view] include things like historical and cultural and experiential contexts. And a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.
But in a wholly determined universe it might be argued that those “outside influences” encompassed every and all aspect of existence/reality itself.
Right?
I think while we are bounded within and withoit the is/ought or the. deterministic world, the topicality of representation may be valuable at this point.
The history of philosophy is yet another element that can be retraced from this mix, as at least partially responsible for the WILL. Schopemhauer covers this, and of this guide is used , the problem of partial inclusive/exclusive basis toward an understanding of clarity.
Next , how did others , Nietzsche primarily, deal with what has reduced to set theory, for what Nietzsche and Husserl became evident as transcendental.
The is/ought world is a preface to this, summarily calling for the synthesis, a primary continuity based on what is conscious and what is not. What is nott known can play a part in determining action, stemming from unconscious motivation. If such is a basis of a future representation of the will to understand, then all those guys seeking some connection between excluded (inductive) and all inclusive (reductive) sets must see an alternative to a summary inclusive set between the two.
Husserl solved this neatly, with the only missing hypothetical that could work at all: the transcendental reductiive levels.
Into this mix, all of.what is listed as possible parts, can be spoken of as intrinsic in the very same set. This would satisfy the criteria for an absolute content into the represented will, and this is more credible then a principle working on nihilization (Nietzsche) of total projection of a thetic absolute.
By inquiring into the nihilization. of free will and the total abdication of it to absolute determination, the concept of historical determination. will tend to help solve the problem.
The question was asked as to how far do we extend relevance , where from the deducement can be made of a simulated will , to power?
The bounderies containing more of the referential elements grow more binding insofar as the complexity of their content becomes more appearent, to organize. and control. the simpler , more entropic boundaries, the less the simulated field becoming determined.
This process need not to entail a vested authority versus anonymity feature, it is sourced from power, a power which the will imposes on the hierarchies of structural fidelity.
Husserl transcends this distinction , and delegates it toward a progressive will.
The will to live, for instance , may not be based on a conscious effort, but them again it can not be disclaimed. that it does.
It is a unity, and not a separability which can be anayized within or without any set conception or preconception, but they too can be aasigned such roles. They do not authenticate or disauntthenticate claims one way or another, and this is why a total determinism can coexist with a will. . the idea here is to suppress the will into subconscious motivation, and over come having deal with it on a conscious level.
Nihilism is a conscious state based on repression of excluding forces determining other choices.
For instance, responsibility preceeds other choices, not in consequence for the attainment of that responsibility, regardless of how much more.pleasurable that choice would be. Most rationalists would like to negate.that unwritten code, bland it is merely a natural code, of psychic and later realization, and not.necessarily tied to a bad dream concerning a guilt.ridden conscious psyche.
Dreams can reverse the subconscious and turn the whole thing upside down.
Very generally, to understand it otherwise, one would need to ignore the natural basis of dreams, and turn ‘Civilization and Its Discomtemts’ upside down. (Which has been done)
You misinterpret peacegirl. She wasn’t contradicting neuroscience or determinism nor was I. I tried to explain this. If hard determinism is the case, well you’re not not understanding and your’re not being able to understand now, was all determined. Peacegirl acknowledges that, accepts that, assumes that. That’s why, as she said, she does not blame you. She thinks others will be similarly affected, over time, and stop blaming, when they realize that you could not help what you did, that one cannot. People will change, not from free will, but affected by what they experience. That blaming will come to seem pointless. No contradiction with neuroscience in this and further it ASSUMES everything is determined. My guess is it is determined that you will not understand this either. Peacegirl is nicer than me about that. He’s more like Jesus on the cross in relation to those nailing him up. Maybe one day I will be utterly determined by events and my reactions to it to give up blame also. That would not contradict determinism either.
I do feel some empathy sometimes. This would also be determined. Determinism does not rule out changes in patterns, in fact, it seems to entail it, so far at least. Peacegirl thinks a specific change will come. Determined. In part this change will come from people who have already been compelled to give up blame, pointing out that blame hurts and doesnot help. This will be part of the causes and effects which, within determinism, will compell others to give up blame. No free will in any of this.
IOW that humans might give up blaming one another is not inconsistant with determinism. That peacegirl might disagree with you on such an issue does not necessarily entail blame.
That’s all. No it does nto solve conflicting goods. No it does not mean that one should have a positive attitude about determinism. No, it does not mean that peacegirl proved free will is not possible. It just means what I said I was pointing out.
I won’t read your response. So forget what i should have done or what I didn’t do, or what I seem to be doing.
Is there something you might have missed and misinterprete?
What might that be?
You may not learn how to feel good about all the things you feel bad about, but you might learn something. I wonder if you have learned anything useful to you in all these years.
The belief in Determinism functions as a security-blanket for most, who would rather that life have some definitive-pre-existing-plan, than no plan at all. No plan, means that individuals are responsible for the course of their lives, and the results, whether good or bad. Those who are dissatisfied in life, cannot accept this, since it would mean blaming themselves rather than others. Life is filled with winners and losers, but, mostly losers. The losers have a desperate need to Blame, people other than themselves. Determinism helps this function, as a release-valve. If all is Determined, then the Losers, can point the finger elsewhere, instead of inward.
Losers reject the possibility that it is their own fault in life, and also reject the possibility that winning is the result of hard work, dedication, and sacrifice.
Winners are rare, by Nature, and will always be a minority in existence.
the conclusion that there is no freewill does not come about because one feels uncomfortable about being caught stealing a candy bar and wants to convince themselves that they couldn’t have done otherwise. the feeling of guilt is hardly a proof that there is freewill.
and while there is no such thing as freewill, there is no such thing as a ‘plan’ either. causality does not denote teleology. to think otherwise would be to anthropomorphize nature and give to it a deliberating will. it has no such thing.
but others can’t be blamed either if there is no freewill.
on the contrary, it’s those who still believe in freewill that demonstrate their lack of constitution and strength in having to blame and put to shame. behind every condemnation is a complaint, and behind every complaint is a weakness.
Change, contingency, outside influences, historical, cultural, and experiential contexts give us our predispositions that lead to the reasons why we make particular choices. None of this grants us free will (i.e. the ability to choose what is worse for ourselves) given the factors that are being considered when making a choice.
Determinism, the way it’s defined in the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil, does not mean we don’t take responsibility for our actions. It’s quite the opposite. Amazingly, when people know in advance they will not be blamed for hurting others without justification, they cannot do it. Responsibility goes up, not down. Determinism means not only not blaming others, but not blaming yourself for things past. It does not mean your choices are already in a fixed state where you cannot change and grow according to a continually changing set of circumstances.
I would like to add that the belief in free will was necessary, as part of our development, in order to justify blame and punishment that followed acts of crime, and also used as a deterrent before the criminal act took place. But now that we know man does not have free will, we are able to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. I hope people will read the first three chapters, which shows how this new world can actually become a reality.
Well the belief in freewill did not originally begin as an expediency with which to place blame and justify punishment. It began with the emergence of self-awareness, and was a necessary error, you might say, in our reasoning. Only later was the belief found to be prevalent and then used for moral and judicial purposes. It was a ‘useful error’ in reasoning that was exploited by those who wanted to control others with the least amount of effort necessary… a kind of path of least resistance. One doesn’t need brute force to control if one can evoke in the other, a bad conscience. Making feel guilty is an extension of that effort without the need to apply coercive force.
therefore the fall waa really a quasi politicalcal effort to gain control and domination. through the manipulation of self impinged guilt unto the very created by the Creator. I wonder of the Holy Fathers saw this as a.scheme, or.they simply put it down to a magical existential imavoidaiility.
Was that close to an absolute proof of a.determined evolutionary stage of robbing man of even the semblance of free will yet holding him responsible none the less.; or was it a case of abstraction ex-nihilo of a semblance of compatible coincidental occurance which brought certain elements of both into a pre-conceived pre reflexive union, building up affinity rather then rather then intentional antogony?
So there is free-will, whether people want to accept that or not.
At the very least, there is blame. And that is because people do, instinctively, sub-consciously, search for causes. Causes can be anthropomorphic. Because people are responsible for their own actions. Although, again, people will deny self-responsibility.
Determinists would say that some people are ‘determined’ to take responsibility, and be responsible, whereas others are not.
However this is a contradiction. You cannot be ‘determined’ to be responsible. Being responsible, is the determination itself.
describe and articulate what the state of responsibility is like and entails, please. is it some kind of state of mind… or is it a physical action? is it merely a thought in which the string of words ‘i am responsible’ crosses someone’s mind? also, would i need to ‘feel responsible’, whatever that means, to be answerable for what i do? that is to ask, is there any difference in ‘feeling responsible’ and ‘not feeling responsible’ as it pertains to my recognizing consequences for my actions, remembering them, and modifying my behavior in the future to either experience again or prevent said consequences? from a third person perspective, could i look at the way person x is acting and be able to say ‘this guy believes in freewill’?
what is the ‘mental state’ of responsibility… what is the phenomenology of responsibility? is it a kind of qualia? what is this strange state that only exists if the string of words ‘there is freewill’ crosses my mind?
the short refutation of freewill is this; natural laws operate seamlessly and there can be nothing random in nature… no ‘breaches’ or temporary suspensions of causality so that some other set of natural laws can suddenly and spontaneously intervene and affect events and affairs such that they occur in some other way than they were going to occur had that breach not occurred. there is no cartesian second substance acting on the material world… and even granting that there was… there would have to be yet another set of natural laws overseeing such interaction between these two ontologically distinct substances that are themselves unable to be suspended or breached.
Everybody, every organism, is ‘responsible’ for itself and its own body, physically. Pain is a primary instinct. Self-preservation and survival is the core essence of self-responsibility. In humanity, after evolution, people develop a much higher and more complicated sense of self-responsibility. People presume that “taking care of yourself, living well” demonstrates more self-responsibility. People who cannot afford basic amenities, do not wash and clothe themselves, are less responsible, or have no self-responsibility, likened to a child or cripple, instead of an adult. People do not respect those without self-responsibility.
So, self-responsibility is a state of power, implying respect. If somebody cannot think for him/herself, again, this demonstrates a low state of self-responsibility or self-care.
Being very self-responsible means that you would be an adult, have a degree of power, individuality, intelligence, self-care, and self-sufficiency. Independent, not dependent on others.
That is a state of responsibility.
these answers are trivial contingencies of which every one there is at least one exception, if not more. i was looking for something more along the lines of a philosophical/metaphysical explanation, since that’s what the theory of freewill is derived from. concepts like ‘respect’ and ‘self preservation’ and ‘independence’ are an exercise in semantics and could be easily disassembled.
so i’m gonna gracefully bow out of this one.