Freewill exists

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.

I absolutely agree.

Prism you are a breath of fresh air.

I was under the impression that Epiphenomenalism was a kind of Dualism, where mind is a separate substance from body, and whilst the body has causal influence over the mind, which serves as a representation of physical conditions, the mind has no causal influence in the other direction, back over the body.

The way you speak of it makes it sound like a kind of Monism, with the same one-way causation. Perhaps it’s both/can be both, I wonder if you know more about it than I do.

I was actually considering mentioning the square circle analogy to you as well. Are possibilities endless even as far as squaring the circle? - is even that potentially possible? Is nothing whatsoever certain? If so, how can you be certain of that?

That’s just will. Freedom to attribute value or otherwise isn’t up to you, even though it completely feels like it is. Determinism isn’t a restriction to only one type of choice e.g. only holding onto a grudge against someone who hit you, because you might be determined to let it go. Subvert instinct and act on your consciousness as much as you like, it’s Determinism that results in that happening, and it’s Determinism that presents you with the kinds of conscious choices you might want to choose, and it’s Determinism that makes one seem more appealing whether emotionally or rationally, and “you” just so happen to pick that one which was Determined to be preferable to you. Instinct is different from conscious rationality, of course, but it is in the way I just described that they have common ground - both are subject to Determinism. Do you understand what I’m saying, even if you don’t agree with it?

Truth is a tautology: “Existence”. Even breaking it down to “there’s something going on” compromises the perfection in truth that is “what is being referred to” when one says there’s something going on. That existence that’s being referred to is continuous and its “having no end” is a null statement because it doesn’t have anything, it doesn’t even have “having”. It’s everything and nothing like the most extreme yin yang possible. The only way we can get meaning from it, and say things like “having” and “no end” is by breaking it down into discrete identities that don’t really exist, but it’s useful if you imagine they do. When you do this, discrete experience can have an end, and evolution can get you from a beginning to that end no problem. Free Will doesn’t apply to what nothing applies to (continuous experience), and when when you deterministically break it down (discrete experience) it doesn’t apply validly.

You break down the “absolute”, and then get back to it as closely as you can with the “relative” through Determinism i.e. causation linking the discrete parts back up with each other relatively. This process is creating useful meaning from truth, and the useful truth is as “true to” truth as you can get it, though forever imperfectly so. This leaves open plenty of ways to break truth down and apply Determinism to it, but breaking it down and applying “Free Will” to it is just a less effective way of getting back to truth - an incomplete one, with internal contradictions. Determinism fills its gaps and gets you closer back to the truth. In this sense, of utility, Determinism is merely far superior to Free Will, but in the sense of existence, something can only exist if it doesn’t have internal contradictions. Free Will has internal contradictions, so it doesn’t exist. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible to keep an open mind, an open mind is perfectly compatible with Determinism, one can even be determined to keep an open mind with regards to Determinism itself. But even if something better than Determinism comes along, it won’t get Free will back off the hook - that will remain in the past with other outdated ideas that we’ve evolved beyond.

I think your ultimate issue is that you see Determinism as a restriction. It’s not a restriction in the way you’re taking restriction to be, which is what I’m trying to explain.

There are things that you are saying that make me think you misunderstand Determinism. Determinism is the unconscious? No it isn’t… Determinism is a description with explanation, it’s not a command or a restriction, it’s just “what happens” and “how/why”. Be as free as you like and evolve as much as you like and it will still explain you better than anything currently out there. It is as simple as cause and effect… I mean, if you think one thing and say another, something is determining you to say what you don’t think. It’s that simple. I keep hearing “but something better than Determinism might come along”, but this does nothing to elevate Free Will back on top of it. It’s not a binary choice, like a see-saw - that logic is just “God of the gaps”. “If a non-zero possibility that antithesis is flawed, then thesis prevails” - no, that’s not how it works. Free Will was a biblical understanding, things moved on and Determinism filled in the gaps. The spectre holds emotional appeal and perceived societal advantage, but none of this is actually true. It would be a shame if you’re simply not understanding what Determinism is, like some of what you say indicates.

Last and least:

You tried to equate clearly definable entities like trees cars and humans with something you can hardly define at all with any precision: identity.
You did this by saying at the extremes of perception everything looks the same, ignoring all the space in between where there is a huge difference. This is the fallacy of composition leading you to make the fallacy of false equivalence.
Debunked.

Tu quoque fallacy: "an argument is wrong because the proponent doesn’t act in accordance with their argument.

“Argumentum ad hominem” (specifically “Tone Policing”) - the fallacy of drawing attention to and criticising traits of the proponent, instead of the argument itself.
“Appeal to emotion” - an emotional reaction instead of a rational one is a logical fallacy.

Essentially a worthless post of yours there, full of fallacies. I’ve never liked you, you’re hysterical and an extraordinarily messy thinker and communicator, but that’s not stopped me from concentrating on the content of your arguments. Why does it stop you? The only reason I’ve ever engaged with you is because you make all these claims of genius, high IQ and proofs.
I’m constantly disappointed, but I’m always on the look out for the slightest hint that there could be something out there I’ve not thought of before. In spite of all your narcissistic claims, you continue to have less than nothing. The only good thing I can think to praise you with is your attempt to formulate logical proofs, even if you fail spectacularly - and I try to see the best in everybody! But I have no desire to put up with incompetence.

The worst part is that you’ll now try and put all this criticism back on me despite it clearly being baseless, so go ahead - and you can pretend it was your idea to cease this un-discussion.

Silhouette,

I’m going to put this to you very bluntly. You’re not as smart as you think you are. Every logical fallacy I’ve ever encountered has many exceptions.

I read you a long time ago. You argue for the sake of arguing but not to get at truth.

This actually pleases me, I don’t hate that, it creates more selective pressure to adapt language and logic.

I assigned the same motive to you that I assign to everyone who argues against identity to this regard … all of you want no accountability, you are not special to this regard.

When you start preaching that non identity is the BETTER perspective than identity, rather than a different tool we have at our disposal, I will lay into you, because, I understand it’s not only incorrect, but the personality structure of going in this direction is about absolving accountability.

This thread is a good approach to the solution, but not enough in my opinion.

OP uses the Law of Excluded Middle to pinpoint ‘where’ exactly free will must reside, if it exists, which is an (undetermined) “internal force”. From my perspective, determinism is epistemological. So the aspects of ‘Self’ or even nature, which are unknown, is where free will must reside. However, Ecmandu correctly argues that free will cannot be ‘external’. And on that point, I agree with the OP.

To further the proposition then, I would ask, what are the “undetermined forces of life within biology that cannot be predicted?”

I would go in the other direction, more pantheistic. Don’t grant any lack of free will anywhere. They lied to us about matter, it being hard and fixed. At the very least is all a consciousness-movable shifting fields of potentials in quantum foam. If one makes freedom the exception rather than the rule, you have given up half the battlefield. Let them point at something without consciousness, so far fully hardened into one option. They can’t.

Pretty much

Consciousness isn’t external, it only seems as if it is due to determinism inverting, which the inverted aspect is our ability to be aware of the ‘unknown’ by choice of value. The subconscious isn’t separate from consciousness, it’s merely a filter and storage of what one may not yet of capable in understanding due to a lack to a lack of direct conscious experience or of how to diagnose that experience.

Yes yes, if you logically argue something to be true whether anyone likes it or not, you’re arguing it because emotionally you want it to be true… - fallacy name: “Appeal to motive”. I’ve heard that before from a different poor thinker, despite the fact that I intentionally live my life exactly in line with how a “responsible” person would. Perhaps it is a pattern amongst Free Will advocates - to swipe back ad hominem out of petty vengeance when reason yet again fails them? More research is needed.

Look, you can hand-wave at the possibility that my expert identification of logical fallacies could one day fail, but until someone legitimately proves me to not be as smart as I know I am, I’ll chalk up that argument under “empty” alongside the others.
It may shock you to know that I fully accept my lack of mastery in some fields, and I prefer to take a backseat when someone shows superior knowledge on a topic out of a desire to learn. I actually want to be legitimately proven wrong by something I’ve not thought of before - THIS is why I argue. I want to advance my understanding of truth, and only argue more if I see even a shred of potential to better myself (or others) in this regard. So when I want out due to frustration, you can be sure that I’ve realised I’m not going to get anything from further discussion. You will notice by the different tone I am offering others when I am not yet absolutely sure if I am right - there is a reason you received that tone to begin with but no longer do. Believe it or not, I do actually prefer to be patient.

To clarify the first half of your closing sentence (the second half is more fallacious appealing to motive), self-identity is not better in terms of truth, but seems to have at least some value in terms of utility. In my stated interests of truth, this alone is why I argue against it. Even if we were arguing utility, self-identity would not be a clear winner if it was accepted that a discussion could be conducted without the layman use of subjects, grammatically. But I don’t know anyone philosophically advanced enough to try this with.

One thing people at least appear to often forget is that experience takes place, using the terms of Materialism, in the brain. The input that gets translated into experience (even experience of the “external”) is supposed to be “from/because” of some noumenal reality that is supposed to exist independently of subjective perception, despite being 100% directly inaccessible. The only conception you have of the “external” to “your identity”, or even “the nounmenal”, is all 100% taking place within your consciousness. This is what I’m assuming people are meaning when they speak of the “internal”… And this puts the argument squarely in favour of “100% internal” empirically speaking. However, as you can tell by the inverted commas, I am not accepting any of this language. My main reason is that 100% internal (or even 100% external for that matter) means there is no opposite against which to define “internal” (or “external”), invalidating the terms when they are 100%.

What happened to the blackboxing, Karpel? :icon-wink:

Are you saying hard determinism is invalidated by consciousness? If you are, I would have to disagree. First of all, are you assuming a Dualist stance? If so, what is your solution to the mind-body problem to legitimise said Dualism? I am not sure the argument would work under Monism. Since you “don’t grant any lack of Free Will anywhere”, I don’t see how Free Will is possible without Dualism. It requires a mind separate from matter such that it is simultaneously immune from being determined by matter, yet can still be influenced by the causation of matter in order to inform decisions, and yet still able to interact with matter once a decision is made and realised. There is so much contradiction in such a claim even if you could satisfactorily solve the mind-body problem. And this is on top of the exhaustive syllogism that either one decides for a reason, which is will but not free from such a reason, or one decides for no reason, which is free from reason but no longer “will”. Therefore you can either have free, or will, but not both.

You need to get past all three of these barriers in order to even think about “Free Will” anywhere.

I think I can only answer this mystery in this way:

Freewill doesn’t want to know everything that happens before it happens, even though it could, as freewill cannot tolerate infinite boredom.

To the extent that it’s executive, it will find a way to construct (ultimately) a ride which doesn’t violate its consent. That involves indeterminacy in the context of meta control.

Additionally, the mind is under pressure not to accept so much indeterminacy that they can’t tell the difference between their indeterminacy and another beings determinant of them, so that, again, their consent is not violated.

I hope that made sense.

Silhouette wrote:

Tu quoque fallacy: “an argument is wrong because the proponent doesn’t act in accordance with their argument”

Just to give a very basic counter example to a so called logical fallacy:

Someone says they don’t exist: they are behaving the exact opposite of their words.

Instinct(basic consciousness) which is our unconscious mind due to not having a developed awareness.

The unconscious aspect to reality or the universe goes back as long or longer than what humanity can trace perhaps. A lot of years went into bringing our dna about, I am not sure the hard deterministic promoters understand that, when matter formed and began reacting with other matter to bring about complexity we were unconscious of such but we are still embedded with the experience, this proves how and why we have separate spaces/levels of mind or consciousness, due to when we were developing, having different levels or states of consciousness.

The mind developed from and matches reality, consciousness is the step we have the advantage on currently. Compared to animals, plants and elements.

There is a higher and lower, it doesn’t matter if one admits it or not, they know it’s true. A higher will/consciousness and a lower consciousness you can point at reality and see such. Determinism itself determined free will, by causing wisdom or the ability to understand.

I understand cause and effect at the very simplistic of levels, the state of elements and the unconscious aspect, complexity formed and brought a subconscious aspect, which is life, which grew even more complex.

Determinism freed itself by creating an infinity of possibilities always ongoing that we may understand and give value within its confines. So I don’t understand how one doesn’t see that they are free within determinism itself. How else would there be different fields of science and exploration?

In one sense all-of-reality is an illusion [in the 3 perspectives above], thus that will cover freewill, consciousness, and the self. [Ref: Kant]

In the relative sense, i.e. conditioned by humans, all-of-reality is real. Example, if you are standing on a track with an oncoming train, you cannot insist ‘you - the self’ and the train is not real!

However in the absolute sense, there is nothing real.
In the absolute sense, there is no real things-in-themselves, no freewill, no self, no God, etc.
Example; the self, there is no absolute independent self that survives physical death as a soul that can go to heaven or reincarnate into something else.
There are no absolute things-in-themselves that are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
There is no absolute God that is independent of the human conditions.
There is no absolute free will independent of the human conditions.

I agree, we can consciously will freely but such apparent free-will is always conditioned by the human conditions, thus a relative freewill not an absolute freewill.

Prismatic,

You make some type of “mystical” argument here which raises serious red flags in terms of inconsistency. You argue that NOTHING is absolute reality, except of the absolute reality of nothing being real. This is not a necessary logical error, however, you did not support your argument as to why one should believe that this exception is true. You merely stated it as truth, in contradiction to the rest of your argument (which I agree with).

Actually, it is a contradiction to this regard: no absolutes, except illusion

Well if illusion is the only absolute, then illusion itself is also illusion, which leaves us with absolutes, absolutes mind you, that you are using to make your argument in the first place, which, now, is a direct contradiction.

These discussions are zero value if they don’t cause a change in power.

Like oh now I understand, free will does/does not exist in this way, so I can now go about this way, or that way, which is better for me.

Ironically to stop believing in free will gives people a lot of freedom. “oh its determined that I want to do this so Ill do it and not doubt the ethics of my decision.”

Its a fad. But does it really change your life?


LESSON 1

Free Will is made out of discipline.

Y? o.

Because, your honour, discipline incorporates the hardest facts that are already given, so it incorporates what is clearly, objectively deterministic, hardness, laws and so, and as it incorporates all that, it still is something of itself and that which that is is increasingly free to itself.

So Chaos in a system is due to the system functioning very powerfully. So that entities of irreducible behaviour take place inside of it.
Thats not given. The weakest forces are the most predictable.

Oh dear, you don’t even know what a logical fallacy is.

“Someone says they don’t exist” is presented as a logical contradiction, not a logical fallacy, though on closer inspection it is not even a logical contradiction. A logical fallacy means the logical structure has a flaw, a logical contradiction just means two terms cannot be both true given a logical structure that isn’t flawed.

Invert your example to “Someone says they do exist”, and that is a logical fallacy: Begging the Question - the conclusion is already assumed in the wording. One can therefore logically conclude (since “exist or don’t exist” covers all possibilities exhaustively), that “Someone says they don’t exist” doesn’t contain a logical fallacy. Either that or the statement itself is invalid because there is either a semantic or syntactic flaw with the subject and/or predicate.

If your example were to contain the “Tu quoque” fallacy like you’re trying to pull, then out of the two options available, that leaves us only with a semantic and/or syntactic flaw with the subject and/or predicate. If this is the case, then we might look at how your example suggests a paradox similar to the liar’s paradox: if someone says it’s true that they don’t exist, they don’t exist to say they don’t exist, but through the act of saying, they demonstrate existence, and you go round and round. However upon closer inspection it’s more like Zeno’s paradox, which turns out not to be a paradox if you simply unpack it. Unpacking it reveals, as I keep saying, the problematic notion of the “identity” of the “someone”. Now it becomes clear that there is an issue of the False Dilemma fallacy in presenting only two options: either “someone existing” or “someone not existing”. The third option being that there is existence that contains within it what is incorrectly isolated “identity” of the “someone”. Now the congruence of the sentence itself is exposed as flawed - and not the implications of the sentence, given its assumed coherence.

Either that or the example doesn’t contain the “Tu quoque” fallacy afterall - take your pick. But this is all stuff I’ve already brought up, I saved the best 'til last:

The hilarious thing is that not only do you not understand what a logical fallacy is, you don’t seem to realise you would be committing the “Tu quoque” fallacy yet again if you were implying that the problem with “Someone says they don’t exist” being because their actions say they exist even if their words say they don’t, is that someone is not acting on what they are saying - and therefore what they’re saying is wrong. You’re trying to offer “a basic counter example of a so called logical fallacy” by committing the very same logical fallacy, as proof that logical fallacies can be countered?! :laughing: So even on what you call “basics” you fail.

Basically on all sides, everything you say demonstrates that you are a newcomer to logic and you are pretending you can swim way out of your depth.
The reason you don’t think I’m as smart as I think I am is because you’re not smart enough to realise I am. If you were, you wouldn’t make that remark - how is someone supposed to recognise what smarter looks like if they’re not smart enough to know what it looks like?
You need to learn some humility as soon as you can - learn to admit where you are, err on the side of caution until you’re sure you’re where you say you are. It’s great that you want to fill boots that are way too big for you, and I commend your new interest in logic - it will help with your ambitions, the more you learn about it. But to get there, put aside your pride, ego, and premature declarations of your brilliance until you know what you’re talking about and you can legitimately back it up - we’ve all been beginners once so there’s no shame. Good luck.

There seem to be conflicting interpretations of truth, or value - which I distinguish as either truth or utility.

The way to truth is to figure out how things are regardless of what anyone thinks or feels - zero personal agenda, attempting to eliminate all bias and mixing up your findings with the findings of others to see what they all have in common. The so-called “Objective” approach.
The way to utility is to figure out what is most valuable to yourself - like you are recommending in your post. Learn the truth of who you are in relation to the world, use your biases to your advantage and self-actualise to the max. One might call this the “Subjective” approach.

Objective truth has zero value if you are taking the subjective path to change your power for the better for you, because they are opposite and mutually exclusive in their ideal forms, methodologically speaking.
But subjective truth (truth “to you”) has zero value if you are taking the objective path to get to answers that hold up better overall than ways proposed by wishful thinkers with an agenda.

This is the difference between intellectuals like Sam Harris and self-help gurus like Jordan Peterson. You might broadly associate the objective path with cooperative behaviour and the subjective path with competitive behaviour, perhaps even with the analytic versus continental schools of philosophy respectively.
Which one holds value depends on what you’re after.
It makes sense, then, how the subjectively motivated tend towards the wishful thinking of Free Will and how it can seem true “to you” regardless of what empirical testing and logic without fallacy will lead you to, which will be Determinism.

I’ve already mentioned, perhaps on another thread - there have been a flood of active “Free Will” threads recently - that siding with Free Will is peacocking. You’re going all in or nothing, by taking absolute credit for what can most directly be attributed to you regardless of any factors that played a part, but also taking absolute blame in the same way. The bigger the ego and the higher the opinion of one’s self-worth regardless of what anyone else points out, the more extreme the attraction is to Free Will. Hard Determinism requires one to transcend ego, or at least channel it to causes as great and beyond you as possible (provided you have the mental capability to do so). You don’t need much mental capability to be more instinctual and selfish, siding with Free Will, but to go the other way you do need plenty of what is the defining factor of humans compared to other animals: the frontal cortex.

Either extreme probably makes one insufferable, with the moderates in the middle more agreeably ascribing to some degree of Compatibilism. But for one path to be “right” or at least “more right”, one first has to establish whether it’s better to be smarter or more dumb. Not actually a loaded question with an obvious answer, by the way. Obviously I side with smart, but I can understand not siding that way. Especially since not being smart rules out Determinism, and less smart people hate attention being drawn to this fact about them - instead gravitating towards other avenues that they can call a superior type of smartness: a self-defense mechanism incorporated into their attitudes and behaviours from an early age. This entrenchment combined with a lack of intellect makes it impossible for them to dislodge - and why would they want to? Of course the high risk high reward road is so attractive when you have nothing to lose, and even if you do lose, denial is easier the more dumb you are. Peacocking portrays the illusion of winning to others and yourself, even if it is covering up a loss.

Without yet calling anyone smart or dumb, it might be interesting to see what people think of this deconstruction of the debate on a meta level. From my experience there does seem to be a significant psychological component that resists rationality when it comes to establishing one’s stance with regard to Free Will et al. or refusing to. Disagreement by Free Will advocates in the usual way will be expected, but in doing so they somewhat prove my deconstruction to be right.

It does cause a change of power, for an individual. It’s the shifting of one’s life. I was never arguing that determinism doesn’t exist because cause and effect clearly exists. But within the “confines” of determinism there is an infinity of possible cause and effect scenarios, that is where our ‘freedom’ lies… Which is a choice and pursuit of understanding of that infinity of cause and effect scenarios. I argue that determinism itself does not create a confinement in the first place unless without consciousness.

If you think determinism creates a confinement then you say there is no higher or lower state of consciousness or states of people, when it is clearly observable in society that such exists. To imply a absolute free will doesn’t exist, one would have to demonstrate an end to wisdom, which would stem from an end of evolution/change or cause and effect itself.

So to imply there isn’t a free will is to imply there is a confinement which how can there be confinement when wisdom and our ability to attribute value, is ongoing?

Genetics can’t be used as a deterministic confinement example either, due to our ability to alter genetics via environment and yes, environment /does/ shape genetics and we have a decent amount of control over environment.

Laugh it up with your gymnastics of obfuscation.

You brought up that “fallacy” because when I backed you into a corner, you simply stated that neither you nor I existed. We have no identity either in itself or relative to other.

And you wonder why I soured to you.

I have a logical fallacy for you:

When you lose an argument, just say the arguers doesn’t exist…

What’s a good Latin name for that?

It is impossible to understand and recognize Power, without granting the existence of Free Will.

Without Free Will, all is powerless. Biology has no power. Nobody has power. You have no choice. You have no chance, to defy “Fate”. Destiny is set. Power would be an illusion. Survival would be an illusion. All is according to “one big master plan (God’s Plan)”. Thus, you must, by necessity believe in the Jew-Christian-One-God. This is the reason-why those who deny Free Will (Silhouette) expose their nature. They are believers in Absolute Slavery, the Absolute-One-God.

No other gods, except theirs.

Free Will means choice. It means you have a chance. It means nothing and nobody is all-powerful. Power is relative, to sacrifice and risk. You make your sacrifices. You take your risks. You may lose. But you may win. And everybody competes to win. And it is when achievements and victories are won, that anybody “feels free” to begin with. Some, though, like Silhouette want a rigged-game, in their favor. Everybody lose-loses, except them, except the rigged-system. A crooked Casino. No matter which game you play, no matter the bet, the House always wins. So too, do they want their One-God, to always win. “Always His Master Plan”.

To them, there is no such thing as Denial or Doubt. You cannot doubt, even if you want to. All Doubts are illusions. Because you cannot defy (((His Plan))).

This is Silhouette’s mindset.