I’d be watchful though, for Dasein, Das-Ein, is extremely reducible, into the very depths of the cave , where there is only a transcendental solution, worth a try, as how a subjectively based(a-priori) and an objectively based (a-posterior) proof can somehow minimally allign to formative opinion.
I’ll give you the freewill idea as I understand it.
Unless a person is made aware of deterministic systems, they can be manipulated as having no freewill.
The moment they are made aware of those deterministic systems, they now have freewill.
A being made aware of all deterministic systems (which are finite - and I can prove that) has absolute freewill.
In saying this, just like peacegirl is arguing in other threads, we have no choice but to move to greater satisfaction … but that’s not really saying much as well.
For all beings to have freewill, there are limitations.
I say as an anology, in order for me to have the freewill of smoking with my hands while walking, I must have a cigarette, something that lights it, and decent mobility.
If no free will then why be conscious at all. One can choose to smoke a cigarette, free will doesn’t imply without work or extra effort, it implies a freedom of available options through thought of which may be manifested through a point of understanding.
You know, we could be just like the other animals, subconscious/unconscious and merely instinctive without any choice or understanding of choice and what it entails.
Excepting mind washing techniques techniques so perfected , as to retain the consciousness and even to be able to differ that from unconsciousness , yet unable to be free to act freely.
Mind washing does not equate necessarily with loss of conscious memory.
Confidence? How on earth can I feel confident given that my entire argument here is predicated on the assumption that my entire argument here is just another existential contraption? Like, for example, yours.
I’m just curious as to how seriously you take yourself given that any number of the points you raise seem to have originated in the outer limits of twilight zone.
You know, in my own opinion.
It’s strictly a cat and mouse thing here for me.
But, sure, there is still a part of me that wonders if the points I raised above are open to legitimate criticisms. After all, what have I really got to lose? And think of all I’ve got to gain if somehow [with the help of others] I do figure out a way to yank myself up out of this hole?
Or maybe even come to believe in some rendition of the afterlife on the other side of the grave.
As for this…
In my view, no one in their right mind would seriously consider debating someone who says things like this. Besides, I’m nowhere near close to being in my own right mind.
There’s a very good reason I think the debate forums are the preferred method for us.
Which is why I didn’t respond directly to your links.
You have a way of ALWAYS avoiding content.
You are content to let the thread die, without responding to salient points, and this is how you “win” debates on this board.
As I stated earlier, the debate forums are cement, neither of us can wiggle out of it.
I assert that in such a format, that you will not be able to win as much as you assert or hold your own as much as you assert than you do in the dustheap of continually recycled posts.
The freewill argument from neuronal determinism argues that the only reason we can read thoughts (before they consciously occur) from brain scans, is that the mind consciously (to save energy and improve reaction time) moves certain decisions and information to the autonomic nervous system.
Good point (epoche) onto argue from, and in my opinion inavoidable .
Here existential modes of brain functioning as relating to intentionality(intentional brain/mind function) is an interesting base of defining objectives.(neural differention-sympathetic/parasympathetic)