Freewill exists

Let’s work with an operative definition of fallacy here.

It’s when the argument is impossible to prove the thesis it’s arguing against, wrong. This doesn’t mean the argument is not wrong! Only that the argument against, as form, cannot prove the thesis wrong.

So, for example, an ad hom, cannot possibly prove any thesis wrong.

I’m strongly suspecting at this point that the Free Will advocates here are simply suffering from an insufficient education (whether from school or autodidactic - so no excuses concerning indoctrination, please).

Are you saying that a logical fallacy might be applicable to an argument, but the conclusion of the argument might still be correct?

This is obviously true (though claiming clarity doesn’t make it so - I’m still not certain if this is what you mean).

But if the conclusion of an argument is true, but it’s argued fallaciously, then the argument still fails and needs revision and correction!

That’s all I’ve been asking of you: revise and correct. Stop claiming proof when it’s fallacious. Admit when a premise is unsound. Be willing to explore avenues that might weaken your conclusion or even make it wrong outright.

But it’s never been clear whether or not any of your conclusions are correct because your argumentation itself is so bad.

viewtopic.php?p=2728592#p2728592

The question I’ve submitted to you, given this definition of logical fallacy, is if you really think that Tu Qouque is really applicable to people who say identity doesn’t exist (except for utility - which is being claimed as not the ultimate truth, therefor untrue)

It would be an ad hominem fallacy to claim you are right because of some unrelated achievement, you are right!!! HALLELUJAH.

Let this mark the first time you’ve correctly applied a logical fallacy so we can finally agree on something! :obscene-drinkingcheers:

I don’t know if I should ask you to post this “technique” because of your history with “proofs” that I’ve seen so far… I can have a look at it if you want feedback - I will be honest if I think it’s good/bad/flawed/whatever - so I’ll leave it to you whether you want to share it. But for now let me just ask: what is the point of finding a unique way to order rational numbers? Does it help with anything?

Given “the” definition of logical fallacy - a correction for you there.

“The Tu Quoque is applicable to people who say identity doesn’t exist?” No… The Tu quoque is applicable to those who oppose people saying identity doesn’t exist. When I propose that identity doesn’t exist in truth, only in utility, and continue to use it, YOU saying my argument is invalid, because I say differently to how I do, is committing the Tu Quoque.

You keep phrasing it like I am committing the tu quoque fallacy by saying identity doesn’t exist. It’s YOU who commits it if you say my hypocrisy makes my argument invalid. If you do so, then the tu quoque is really NOT applicable to people who say identity doesn’t exist (except for utility) without being logically fallacious.

Really not convinced you understand the fallacy yet - things you keep saying sound like you’ve got it exactly backwards, but let me know if it’s just bad explanation on your part and if you do really understand it as I’ve just explained and keep explaining it.

You’re stating that identity doesn’t exist, and that this is the ultimate truth, yet, you respond to my posts.

You are not acting as you state.

It however, is self evident not only that you exist, but you act as you exist.

My Tu Quoque is that you are full of it, and instead of being a logical fallacy, it’s actually a proof that you are wrong.

If you read my above definition of fallacy, then you’d understand that this is not a logical fallacy in this case, and perhaps, if you read my definition, not a logical fallacy at all.

Also, silhouette,

Not only did I find a unique solution to the rationals, I found the only solution (with some overlap with rational numbers, the solution to the real numbers)

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193986&p=2699506&hilit=Rational+numbers#p2699506

There is no temporal dimension or time to the unconscious/subconscious aspects of reality and the mind. It’s why we need an alarm clock to wake us up and why dogs and animals haven’t invented clocks. It is the separation of us and them, which the differentiation is consciousness. We have a subconscious/unconscious aspect to our mind that we may explore. Consciousness is finite, which is why you must hold the right pieces, to glimpse temporarily, more than what you can hold from the subconscious. The unconscious/subconscious aspect It is cause and effect in an inevitable form, non observable because there is no observer that may understand fully.

Memory capacity and other functions of brain as the receiver of and with consciousness, with evolution, will expand I believe, it already has been, different people have different forms of what would appear ‘better’ memory, short or long, photographic or not, based around different perceptions, our uniqueness is beautiful, a gift.

Yes all will revert back to death and nothingness, to start over again. It will start over, there is no end. Without life it is inevitable because there is no time to it, the unconscious/subconscious, it has all of time to restart and we will be back like we always are, perhaps with different form and different minds.

The present imagination is dependent upon what you understand. The more you understand the more possibilities you may imagine that are plausible, it’s a matter of investing in all of science as a whole and philosophy. It’s not about thinking an infinity of thoughts, it’s about seeing an image that -is- an infinity of thoughts to be understood but the quest is forever, that’s why we need everyone to get that image, to invest time in understanding themselves. It appears as forever because our resources philosophically in humanity are limited due to people being confined to their own egos and traps of the mind that promote self ignorance. It’s a collective effort silhouette, you must look at it not from your identity alone but for all of mankind and life, we recycle, into new form, unconscious or not, nothing is left behind. The interior of the mind has the imagery to paint that infinity because the mind came from this same infinity and is attached to it. Don’t you see that? The unconscious and subconscious mind is a result of what could not be understood, which is what we are attached to, electromagnetic or not that is the soul. The energy that is not our own. We must go as far as we can into infinity, even if it never ends. Unless you think we should cease in our evolution and exterminate ourselves to extinction?

We don’t have to test them silhouette, we already see them all the time on tv… people whom we or others point our fingers at and blame because they chose to be successful in whatever they chose to pursue. The mass populace paints successful people as bad because of ego, insecurities and jealousy. You know this is true, the reason why is because that celebrities will is higher than the one who is hating them and it is known. That’s why they are celebrities, it’s the basic us and them scenario. I understand the electromagnetic spectrum and imagery. So it must have put me here to talk to you about this, which both of us have the intent in freeing each other’s mind of what we think is a trap but perhaps it is just semantics we discuss over and not a disarrangement of truth. That energy is not our own, the only thing that is ours is our identity which is the will. That is ours, what you do with that will is up to you, not forced to live miserable forever… we have a choice to understand balance and appreciate what everything is. Life is the miracle compared to an infinity of chaotic primordial evolution or nothingness.

Planets and astrology play a role in this. Another thing deemed superstitious because of religious elements and semantics basically… alignment of bigger body forces plays a role in our being.
The freedom comes after you have accepted that you aren’t free, the consent is the choice to live… this was accepted a long time ago, which has given me a long time to find what is possible and I am trying to explain that those possibilities
In actuality, are endless… if we pursue wisdom and making the proper choices and can adapt/self preserve to higher levels through those choices.

There is no conflation of what is possible and actuality if based upon understandings, I really would hate to live my life proving something to you when countless people already prove it by their status of being successful, it isn’t a conflation because I still can choose, there is no end of possibility and value attribution until I cease to exist in a given present moment or some big altercation changes my being physically, which could shift possibilities if I let it. Yes, my own reason determines this, because I have made a choice in what I believe to be more important for myself and humanity as a whole.

Yes a reason decided off of individual value attribution. No one denies reason, I only state that we as the identity, get to pick such and that is our freedom to do such, the only thing we truly have is our heart and our will, can’t let either become corrupt and I know you know this, that’s what brought us here, to philosophy. Understanding self is about acceptance and one has to choose that for themself, it is their own reasoning and attribution of value to those reasons.

I think it’s all just a discussion of semantics to be honest, we argue the nearly the same things ultimately. The acceptance of self and what is, is the freedom one gets… it’s a liberating thing, to accept something or someone for what they are, because there is no attachment, there doesn’t have to be. I don’t know why you don’t like the term free when we aren’t exactly confined either, if such is accepted.

Not if there is no attachment to those reasons previously. Only scenario would be an altercation which an individual can also choose to avoid or sever attachment.
Sure there is always reason some are out of human control but a lot in human control. If denied, then what’s ego? What’s ignorance? What’s wisdom? Why is there a differentiation of levels between these facets of which are easily observable in society and immediate environments even?

Except, what you enjoy does matter, Silhouette, otherwise you would have been born without emotion and feeling, that is what makes you connected to life, complexity of feeling. There are reasons too for what you dislike and what you do not. But they don’t have to be wishes if you can taste and feel it. It is an aspect to perception of which you should also account for in determining your conclusions, what you feel can be intuition. You don’t have to form a bias or stay at a bias. Do you look inside yourself interdependently of these things as well?
A lot of values can be reset by choices.

You said it yourself, electromagnetic frequencies are what project us into being by altercations of atomic level, which is an unconscious/subconscious aspect of reality, an infinitely old aspect. So if that is what projects life and it is infinitely old, then why so much attention at understanding the world and not so much attention at understanding you when you are the most complex thing immediately available? Are you being told what you are instead of experiencing what you are? This could be an issue as well. Best thing you could ever do.

“I don’t avoid others because I don’t like them or that I do not want to be around others, it is just that we are byproducts of environment and attachment, I avoid people so I may become me.

My mind too is a chemical or transmutable force of which the reaction from altercations with others, may not always be desired or beneficial”

Saying determinism will cause something to happen if it is supposed to happen is like saying god put that tree there because he wanted it to exist, then a human rips it out because he as an unique individual, did not want it there, which happens… everyday. Different semantics and I truly hope you understand that. We have effect over cause and effect, which we use… every day. This is the point of being an individual unique identity, that is the freedom… the uniqueness of self and how self interacts with world, it is only through acceptance of this self that things really can fall into place and power executed from mind manifesting into reality to create success.

I hope you enjoy the image I have attached, different levels of frequency of which manifest based off of unique value attribution and individual choice.

Frequencies of mind. I appreciate it for what it is and myself for what I am, a purple mind, ineffable.

“It is what it is and it is what you make it.”

I’ve read it, and to the extent that I don’t hold back I am nasty, yes. I am only nasty, however, to people who will not respond to kindness. So if I am nasty to you, you know why. If you don’t want nasty, respond to any patience I show.

You think you are terse and you are the opposite. You think you are clear and you are the opposite. If you understanding something, you can successfully condense it. 30 pages? These aren’t the kinds of proofs that mathematicians come up with I will bet - the ones that take pages despite being reduced to the most concise symbolic form possible, with only the absolutely necessary included. You just mean the usual that you produce, which is consistently a long way from its simplest form, if it has a form at all.

I ask work from you because you need to do some - proofs don’t come for free - and you object to me asking you to do work necessary to legimitately prove something.

The rest of what you said I’ve already covered.

There’s very few intellectual things that surprise me anymore, but unintellectual pleading against the intellectual never ceases to surprise me.

Was your tautology really resolved, or are you just claiming so like usual? A difference in context and meaning by itself sounds like a valid reason to deny tautology, but I will have to see it and how you’re applying this to believe it. A link to a terse and clear proof or a terse and clear re-iteration would be appreciated. What I end up getting, however, may not be.

There is existence, of which, that which you identify as “me” is included. I understand what is meant when anyone refers to “me” (utility), but “I” am one with everything in continuity (truth). You’re conflating the two even though I have explained the difference many times.

“Your” tu quoque? So when you use it it’s a logical proof, not just a logical fallacy?? Are you kidding me? Tu quoque is tu quoque - whoever uses it it works just the same. If this is how you’re going to define fallacy, then I need say no more, you ridicule yourself. Are you implying that if something is promoted to logical proof it no longer retains the aspects that made it a logical fallacy?

Look, the best version of what you’re trying to explain here is that both “to be” and “to not be” is a logical contradiction, which would be valid (though not sound as “to be” is empirically problematic), but to only say “to not be” whilst “acting like being” is hypocrisy and therefore not true - this is a logical fallacy. It depends on which your argument is. The argument is one or the other, maybe both but not as the same argument. The first is valid but not sound, the second is sound but not valid. So they’re very different, and truth requires being both valid and sound - meaning neither are true.

As-if humans or animals are not governed by the same “Fundamental Forces” you promote, and therefore, must not be governed by Master and Slave dynamics…?

A paradox for Silhouette, you cannot have it both ways. If existence is “governed” by natural law, then why wouldn’t that same natural law govern the hierarchies of mammals (which it does)?

Some humans are free (not Silhouette, obviously). Others are not.

The next point is how to identify, how to locate, how to know, how to “determine”, which are free and which are slaves? How could anybody tell the difference? Can a slave, know that she is a slave, when she is already convinced she is free? People believe in lies. So can a free man believe himself a slave, or wouldn’t that be false? Isn’t it the case that a free man could not believe he is a slave, otherwise he would not be free?

These questions are beyond Silhouette though… he failed to progress that far in the previous thread.

Let’s condense your argument as you’ve presented it.

Utility is not the absolute truth.

The absolute truth is no identity.

Your reliance upon utility is a contradiction to how a person is required to act if they truly believed what you assert to believe is the only truth.

So, I can easily assert that you don’t believe your own argument whether it’s true or not.

That’s just a bare minimum of what I’m required to do to end this debate, that as a proof, you don’t believe your own argument.

Even though I did prove it false, I don’t even have to go that far with you.

You’re responding to my posts, which means that deep in your head, utility is superior to non identity for you.

So the question for you is;

Now that we’ve proven identity (utility) means more to you than non identity, what are you going to do with that corner I put you in earlier. Remember?? The remainder of the limits that can’t be chaos??

Remember that corner?

My assessment of Silhouette thus far:

He is a wannabe slave-master. He doesn’t believe the shit he’s posting. He doesn’t trust in his own words and position. Instead he pushes his agenda as a means to persuade others into slavery, or those who are slaves, to prevent them from ever considering Freedom. He hates the idea of Freedom. He is against it, with all his (“intellectual”) might, because it would cut into his underlying agenda.

He hates the possibility that other people could be ‘freer’ than he-himself is.

And/Or

He hates the possibility that slaves might become enticed by dialogue of Freedom, and then go onto Free-themselves. As a wannabe slave-master, this is too much for him to tolerate.

This schematic you posted Artimas is pretty nifty.
Its an interesting experiment to go in meditation from the bottom to the top.

Id say most od us operate at least on two of these frequencies - I don’t know how literal to take that term here - at any given time.

There can very well be joy with a background of fear, or reason with a background of shame - and this is I think pretty useful as a therapeutic model.

“My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will”

  • William James

That chart, which I cannot seem to copy or bring with me, seems like a mix of different kinds of states and qualities. One coudl have several at once and I do not think the ones at the top are better. So much depends on the context.

Certainly one who claims to belong exclusively to the highest order is going to encounter some tough challenges.

Humility!

No honest man could claim to never be in a state of fear, shame, or any of these other states.

Agree, most likely bounce between multiple frequencies. Once you get to the view of it is what it is though, there is no turning back so at the highest state, one can effectively see when one is in a negative state easier and is more likely to catch such than someone whom is only on one of those states. Because to rise, all states must be experienced at least once or twice in life to understand them. That’s the moving up the staircase aspect, if we couldn’t or didn’t bounce back or go down as well, there would be no worry of devolution and I wouldn’t be here, but we can move backwards.

He’d just call that ad hom.

The problem with this academic gymnastics is that common sense win every time.

He’s basically calling it a logical fallacy that if silhouette and I were in a mesa (cliff on the whole perimeter) and I warned silhouette that there are cliffs in all sides, and then silhouette walks to the edge and walks around the whole perimeter without falling, and then states, “there are no cliffs here”, that I am committing a logical fallacy by inferring that silhouette most certainly believes that a cliff is there. Then silhouette would quote the argument from incredubulity! When it’s not me, but silhouette who is being the incredulous one.

Silhouette is like some bizarre broken computer of logical fallacies.

I don’t think he’s trying to make slaves, I just think he’s a broken computer.

When I was about 20 years younger I achieved Nirvana for the first time, and I spent the next six month meditating continuously, every day struggling to get to that state, and once arrived, spending a few hours there.

Eventually, because the state wasn’t permanent, I lost a bit of faith in it as a purpose and I allowed myself to drift back into a more imperfect consciousness, knowing the bliss is part of me and always attainable.

Now, I enjoy he struggles of life and the sort of jagged consciousness that comes with it, which I see epitomized in dramatic art, especially of the typical western kinds, such as tragedy and hiphop.

It’s not really worth conversing with that one - except if you agree with him and you want reassurance and a sense of belonging to a tribe. Give it a go though if you want to try it out for yourself. Funnily enough, if I’m a broken computer, he’s a broken record :wink: - the chip I’ve put on his shoulder from demolishing him constantly for about a year really took a toll on him, he still can’t shut up about me :laughing:

I would take exception to common sense winning every time. That’s no slight to common sense - there is a ruthless society-wide refinement that goes into forming it, but this is also its weakness. Its whole point is to homogenise into a simple, singular, mediocre “common” sense for common people. It’s adverse to new creative thinking, which you might call rare sense. I’m well aware that I’m furthering a worldview of rare sense that flies in the face of common sense in many ways, but the fact that it solves so many traditionally problematic philosophical conundrums in a relatively simple way makes it really promising in my opinion - and absolutely worth exploring.

It’s an original philosophy that I came up with many years ago, which I dubbed “Experientialism”.

And I wouldn’t say I am incredulous, because I am able to believe in identity - as I prove through my use of it in communication and casual social interaction (I would be seen as extremely weird to common people if I didn’t conform to such basic linguistic traditions in everyday conversation!) I have just adopted far more rigorous standards of knowledge than usual, which identity does not pass, and so using these standards it can no longer be said to be “true”. However I think I can say differently about you and others, who won’t/can’t believe the consequences of adopting standards of knowledge as rigorous as I am using. To borrow your analogy, I’m not walking around the cliffs, I am walking on what you thought was over the edge, but actually isn’t.

Sure, that seems fine.

I can see now that you’ve been using the word “contradiction” in the layman way - where it is acceptable to say things like “your words contradict your actions”. I’ve been using the technical way this whole time - the one that is applicable to logic. Sure, in layman’s terms my words “contradict” my actions. But there is no logical contradiction there if using the term as it is used in logic.

It’s funny to me, to see people reacting so negatively to someone such as me who knows the truth but acts differently just to be able to operate normally with regular people. I have no bad faith or cognitive dissonance because I understand and accept what I’m doing perfectly.

Regular people make a virtue out of acting in accordance with what you say/think - on one hand - but on the other hand they all believe their own narratives. Consider the modern western attitude towards religion: none of these people believe the stories are actually true anymore, but they see the wisdom in them and act accordingly. That is to say: they don’t think or say the stories are true, they don’t believe in them, but they believe in acting according to them - which is what I’m being accused of like it’s a negative thing.
All narratives are merely a conduit - a medium to translate meaning. They’re all removed from reality and put into the form of a story, and there’s no need whatsoever to believe in the story or think/say it’s true, whilst also living by it. People already do it all the time. It’s only the religious nuts who turn this on its head by insisting the stories are 100% true, to justify the fact that they live by them, and to make sure their actions match what they believe is true.

You have zero access to the consciousness that others seem to have, other than taking their word for it, intuiting through empathy using your mirror neurons, and generally using your imagination based on your own consciousness. You create this narrative that is “their identity”, but the thing is you do the exact same thing for yourself. Common experience such as what you learn to be “your hands”, “your legs”, “your reflection”, “your sense of balance and coordination” etc. reinforce themselves through repeated exposure to form this shopping basket that comes to form this idea of “identity” if enough of these things are in the basket at any one time. Lose enough of these things, or change them, and people say “you’ve changed”, or “you’re not you anymore”.

I’m not wrong here, and this is all perfectly consistent with my own philosophy, Determinism and the arguments I’m making here. Understand and seriously consider what I’m saying here long enough and you might even come to realise it solves a lot of problems - simply by differentiating between truth and utility.

You keep going on about genius, well this is what it looks like right here.

I’m far away from any corner you think you ever put me in - we’ve only been following one line of reasoning: the one I found most interesting to discuss. Even if you decided you weren’t interested in truth and wanted to operate from utility and then revisit your initial argument, I still have my 3 main arguments against Free Will that nobody’s even attempted to get around:

  1. Possibility is not actuality: the feeling that you could have chosen differently doesn’t make it an actual choice. Only actually choosing makes something actually possible.
  2. The mind-body problem. Not a problem in the sense that it could have a solution, but a problem in the sense that it’s an unavoidable obstacle to any degree of Free Will at all.
  3. How can you be influenced by circumstance, in order to have something to make a decision about, without being influenced by circumstance, in order for your decision to be free from said influence? Free or Will? Not both.

I find my “View of Life” is just “Is” but I wouldn’t say I’m “Enlightened” in any “spiritual” sense that one might associate with things like Eastern religion or meditation etc. I don’t meditate and I am averse to anything religious, I’ve just realised life just “Is” and this is how I think of it, simply through thinking philosophically so unremittingly for so long. My emotional state isn’t “Ineffable”, but the fundamental concept of Experientialism that is “Continuous Experience” is ineffable. I don’t really have an emotional state, someone I worked with once mistook me for the happiest person they’ve ever met, but another colleague corrected it to more like “content” - I don’t have any of this “Energetic Frequency”, I just “am” - but not even that. Not needing an ego, as is consistent with Experientialism and Determinism, is a significant ingredient of getting to where I have. I’ve not tried to get anywhere, I just ended up here. From what little I know of what I think is Buddhism, my way is consistent with not needing attachment. “Neutral” seems wrong, I find life neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory - all of the other views of life don’t apply to me. I have my weaknesses that drop me a few tiers in the rare occasion that I am confronted with them, sure. As has been pointed out, it’s a fun schematic to explore, but not really as discrete as it is laid out to be: another example of “Discrete Experience” distorting Continuous Experience for the sake of utility over truth.

Silhouette,

The cliff analogy was perfect.

Non identity is the cliff.

The truest truth there is!

You never walk off it, even though it being the truest truth, subsumed identity as its subset.

Ultimately on the cliff, the truest truth that there is, is the cliff. Yet you never step off it, while claiming that it doesn’t exist, or rather, that beyond it is the ONLY place you and I need to be, or are!

I believe that a higher order logical fallacy can be made from this example, which doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination make it “laymens logic”.