Freewill exists

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.

Ad refutatus disappearicus

I don’t want to laugh at you, I just can’t help it. Help me to not laugh by learning logic before you claim expertise - your misuse is rife, and this is the exact same experience I had with another newcomer to logic on another Free will thread that lasted far too long. Like I quoted before - chess with a pigeon.
I’ve been thoroughly exhaustive in my process of elimination just now and you call it obfuscation - you can’t make this kinda stuff up :laughing:

I brought up many many fallacies that you were making because when make arguments they’re riddled with fallacies… I always find the truth easy, but others seem to find it so hard.

The “Ship of Theseus” has been a problem dating all the way back to the ancient Greeks, and you’re acting like I pulled the objection out of my ass in desperation. The philosophical ignorance in this place is just astounding. I mean, for a place that would presumably attract people who love philosophy, there’s certainly some here who never seem to have done very little before. That’s fine if they understand they’re beginners, but if they claim expertise, mastery or even genius - that’s not going to fly I’m afraid.

I know why you soured to me, it’s because I call you out on your shit. I’m not here to make friends and I couldn’t give a shit what anyone thinks of me - I’m just here to grow myself and hopefully teach others so they can grow too. Emotion has no place in rational debate, so love/hate me all you like - just learn how to argue.

I’ve had the same experience before, of something who I kept backing into corners thinking they’ve backed me into one. It’s when you don’t know what’s going on because you’re out of your depth and still can’t shake the perception of yourself as superior - standard Dunning Kruger effect, which to an extent I guess can’t be helped. The trick is a change of mindset, learn to learn: insist to yourself that you are wrong and the other person is right and work it through to see if it works without assuming anything - maybe even adopt their line of thinking as best you can as your own for a while. Don’t simply assume you’re right from the outset, because as soon as you lose an argument and the air clears, you’ll think you’ve won and you’ll learn nothing. This other guy who I mentioned continually misunderstood and misrepresented basic concepts, he also completely lacked the cognitive ability to understand my point of view, and now spends his time on this forum trying to dirty my name by misrepresenting my point of view and mentioning my name over and over - a petty, desperate and vengeful catharsis, obvious to anyone with half a brain. He’s quite easy to spot.

But Ecmandu, I have faith in you that you’ll not sink to his level and honestly search yourself for any signs that you could improve yourself philosophically in any way.

I can help teach you some logical concepts if you want, I only get frustrated with people who insist they are more than they are, and/or people who insist that something wrong is right. Otherwise I’m actually quite an amenable guy and a good teacher. A win-win situation, if you’re interested.

Ahh… the Theseus eh?

I already showed in my platonic forms thread that there are an infinite number of iterations to each instant, and that this is absolute chaos; the inability to discern something. Yet we have no problem calling the Pacific Ocean an ocean and we have no problem calling the Nile river the Nile river the Nile river. The ship of theseusness of the ship of Theseus.

What this gets to is object permanence in spite of knowing that it’s impossible to use the nouminous as an infinitely changing property. Since we can use the name as continuity over time, this proves platonic forms, platonic forms, not defined as the perfect ocean, but a template of oceanness. In this way, we can prove platonic forms exist, as it would be impossible to even name objects as an ILLUSION!!

Let’s get to the core of identity:a=a

We know for a fact, that even the two a’s being separated by space, makes it impossible to be the same a.

Yet, like the ocean, we know the ocean is still the ocean, and a=a (identity) still holds.

Like I stated earlier, it’s the sweet spot of perceptual acuity that allows us to formulate ANY equality, even the ones you are trying to make. What this means is that it’s a direct contradiction that you’re making to assume through equality that an equality doesn’t exist outside out perceptual acuity. You’re contradicting yourself.

All you managed to do, was to prove platonic forms, and not god.

You must have a continuity of consciousness (platonic form - just like the ocean exists), to be able to make your argument. This solve as identity!!

U iz conphused.
I said freewill consists of discipline. But you answer as if I said freewill doesn’t exist.
Weird.

But it goes to show that things aren’t logically determined but rather free agents. No way anyone could predict your response.

I largely agree with your thinking. Free will is a higher order paradigm.

I was just clarifying my position, it pretty much is discipline and it takes discipline/humility to achieve understanding.

It does.
Cool, thanks for clarifying.

Errr… you speak like you’re overly familiar with the Ship of Theseus thought experiment, and then you reel off “The ship of theseusness of the ship of Theseus” like it’s a simple thing. Do you actually understand the issue with it, or are you just ignoring/forgetting it/pushing it aside?

It was Heraclitus who so wisely and astutely said “You can never step into the same river; for new waters are always flowing on you. No man ever steps into the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he is not the same man.” and yet you have no issue speaking of oceans like clearly and precisely identifiable things in spite of their constant changing and the profound ambiguity of where a river ends and an ocean starts.

Your “solution” is simply to appeal to essence - a throwback to pre-Existentialism. Concretely it’s obvious that identity is especially dubious in cases like the aforementioned, and it’s only through the generalisation of abstraction that you can hope to wave your hands at some kind of identity, template and permanence. If you observe from really far away, the ocean/land divide appears distinct - so just stand far enough back from anything and then even things like identity can be clear, right? Stand really far back and Platonic forms can exist!

The aversion to examination and precision… it’s one way of living your life - as the proverbial armchair philosopher.

Is it impossible to name objects as an illusion? What about illusions? A small oversight from someone standing so far away from reality, perhaps. “Stand at the right distance and any illusion can seem real” seems to be your whole point…

Continuity solves as discrete identity? Don’t you mean it’s the exact opposite? It’s possible to think of the ocean as a discrete identity, therefore identity has no issue…

Are you going to ignore the variation in range or size of these “sweet spots” of perception, depending on what you’re identifying? For some things this range is huge - clearly identiable things are identifiable from close to far away e.g. trees, cars, human bodies. Some things are only clearly identifiable from really far away like oceans, either where you’re so far from any rivers leading into it that you can’t see he issue of where it starts, or you’re so far above that these rivers become too hard to make out, or if you look so quickly to one or take a snapshot so it appears like it is not constantly changing. Some things are only “identifiable” from so far away conceptually, into the generalisation of templates; and even at this level of abstraction they aren’t that clearly definable.

The birth of identity is in the ability to ignore contradictory evidence. It’s in the opposite of clear and careful observation, critique and precision.

There you go: identity is the child of ignorance.
Pray to the god of willful blindness and even the most vague identities can exist, and the most abstract realms of templates are your guiding lights.
I think this is where you want to be.

Silhouette,

Nice try, but all of these “anti illusion” theories of no identity as the solution rely on the infinite regress of objects, and since nobody can count an infinity, even god itself, this forces the proof of platonic forms, not only as a solution to this problem, but it also solves the infinite regress of existence never beginning, without contradiction (something from nothing), by showing that eternal templates (not infinitely regressive) explain how we can see objects out of infinity without actually having to process a full infinity (which would take forever)

I already demonstrated to you why this has to be the case. An infinity cannot be itself without existing, which, even though the infinity exists, forces the finite, which is why we have identity and part of why existence exists instead of not existing.

Ecmandu assumes that whatever he imagines must by default be true but he has yet to convince anyone else of this

You’re a subjectivist. You don’t believe that definition is the the description of self evident dilineations.

Are you the big badass man who doesn’t believe that you exist like silhouette??

By calling me a worthless price of shit (which yes, you are doing), you deny objectivism.

And so I think likewise of you. I do exist. Self evidently. That’s why you replied to my post.

Were there a competition for the most ridiculous non sequitur ever this would be a serious contender for that position
And it wasnt your post that I was replying to either so your eyseight is fading as well as your ability to reason logically
I knew I should have stayed away from this thread oh well never mind


And I am not a subjectivist either so even more fail for you there Eccy baby

It shows you have no intellectual capacity here.

You addressed the totality of me as a response to someone on ILP. That objectivists, especially, ecmandu, because you named me, are the biggest worthless prices of shit in all of existence, by the objective standard of EVERYONE who ever lived (yes, you used a universal in your reply to sihlloutte, and would be better if blowing his brains out.
Read your fucking post dude.

And read between the fucking lines.


And eyesight not eyseight [ I hate making spelling mistakes ] its all your fault Eccy

Ok you’re retreating back to your infinite regress argument from 6 months ago. We already buried this one through the concepts of continuity and relativity. You have to believe everything is a sequence of discrete and absolute snapshots for this nonsense of yours to make any sense whatsoever.

I think I’ve pretty much nailed it on the head that your realm of eternal templates is just a fantasy world where you ignore contrary evidence and only think in black and white. All hail the god of ignorance. His name is Ecmandu.

Nice to see surreptitious is aware of your affliction too.
But Jesus, dude, stop bringing this out of me - I don’t want to have to continually put you in your place like this. It feels like flogging a dead horse - still no response to my offer of tuition? You’d really benefit, and I offer it for free. It’s worth it just to put a stop to whatever this delusion is that you’re riding on.

Continuum theory is the same as infinite regress.

Analog is by far more problematic than snapshots. I’m arguing for snapshots being necessary because of analog

Calm down Eccy its just a difference of opinion stop ranting like a madman