Freewill exists

It seems to me the only way to keep Experientialism pure is by answering everything with either silence, or saying something like “See? Experience!”

Everyones lies and bullshit and ego and ambition as well as their truths and what not are equally valid as experience, all equally indicating experience.

Nice. Going to moot. Should be done more often. One quibble: it’s not just that one would be determined by external forces, it would include internal forces. Unless one is saying that all forces are external to consciousness (which is sort of like an epiphenomenalism claim). If my internal forces are determined by past internal forces and external forces, then my organism goes this way or that way, but it is all predetermined. Few determinists would say that other people and natural forces external to us completely control us. They would just argue that internal and external causes are the same in that they are determined by the moment before.

I think there are problems with claiming one knows determinism is the case, since determinism, if it is the case, makes knowledge claims very questionable. They are compelled. They would seem right. Etc.

I can’t do anything about determinism vs. free will. But I can (or I am compelled to) make decisions that increase the range of responses I make and the skills with which I make these choices. There is a difference between a rigid person who has only a few ways of responding and someone who is flexible and skilled - even if free will does not exist. One can also choose to (or be compelled to) decide that one will get out of one’s own way. Eliminate guilt, go for things one wants, more towards more freedom. This freedom is not a degree of free will, but a more flexible and fitting to one’s desires and needs situation for oneself. Prison, for example, is, for most, very limited. There can be jobs and relationships that are prisons in a metaphorical sense. Learning, skill aquisition, deciding to look at things in oneself and society one might find unpleasant, can lead to greater freedom. Again, with the whole issue of free will vs. determinism black boxed.

Yes, determinism is the science of determining causes and effects. It goes a long way, but it isn’t by ANY means comprehensive. Its basic buffer is the Standard Model and this is under constant subtle revision.

It doesn’t mean that nothing can be identified except as a cause or effect to something else.

Yes I did provide for that here:

“If all is determined by outside forces, or forces inside that don’t essentially belong to the determined thing, how are all these forces even recognizable in the form of a thing, which appears to have an entity?”

So the Spinozan question here is, when do internal forces become truly part of us?
He argues that it is once we know and understand them.

Until there are forces inside of us that we aren’t conscious of, we are being lived (determined) by these forces rather than by our own (Id)entity.

So our Identity is something we grow into, qua, basically, wisdom.

And as wee grow into our (id)entity, we become free. That is to say: we can’t be defined (predicted) any longer except in terms of what is clearly in our own self interest (our power to continue to be).

Its all pretty simple really when it comes down to the quality of life standard that is the real issue here.
But theoretically-semantically it gets really convoluted.
But almost everyone really knows that to be free means to know oneself means to have power, and that its fucking hard to attain a complete state of that.

Yes it is like robbing someone of their sword at gunpoint and then saying: see? there are no weapons.

Or something like that.

This is what Spinoza would call the process of becoming oneself. Meaning, becoming self-determining.
And what is self-determining if not “free”?

Free to oneself, of course.
Not: free from oneself.

These are two different kinds of freedom altogether which are haphazardly conflated throughout any free will discussion.

And it all ultimately resolves only in the question: where the hell did being come from anyway?
Obviously the Big Bang is simply a projection of the dilemma. Everything came out of nothing because the laws of nature didn’t apply in nothing. Yeah.

It’s a bit of a tangent but this part caught my eye most. It is amazing how many ‘paths’ try to get one free from oneself. Buddhism with its disidentification, modern psychiatric/pharmaceutical approaches to the so called negative emotions, new age approaches, and even both the Left and the Right have political correctnesses about what one should feel, desire, not feel, not desire, express, not express…and so on. All this training to be one’s own jailer or to exile parts of oneself or to suppress, deny, feel ashamed of as a rule, feel guilty about.

Two perspectives
From outside of science:
The science is the consensus based on the scientist.

From inside the scientist:
The science is the fact that I (the scientist) is a badass.

In both cases, the science is the attribute of the scientist, not the other way around: hence the eureka joy. “This world is mine for all eternity.”

Tell me a fuckingbout it.

And in the other direction stands: free to oneself.

Own the pain, first all. And the guilt and the shame and all the fucking sludge in the organs that can’t be transmuted into blissful truths.

But even then, this only makes sense if there is some form of metaphysics, some ethics, some Idea, into which all the sludge has a home.

This Idea is found in certain pagan gods, to get it all the way off topic in tangent - and I believe this might be the very necessity of religion to exist - to give a home to the dirt. Otherwise the dirt is the home, and thats just shitty, and unhealthy. Even though it may be the final truth, it isn’t the highest truth.

Therapy… what a topic.

I went into therapy three times.

The first time, I turned extremely depressed. The guy was sitting there listening to my crazy stories about death and sex admitting that he found it all way too compelling. I had to get a lift from him back to my city then at night, feeling more soulless each time.

The next therapist some years later prescribed an antipsychotic to me off the bat, just from hearing me say I smoke weed and probably the look on my face and my jagged sentences.

I got the drug, looked on the little sheet of paper that comes with it at the side effects, one of which actually was “death”.
I kept them in a drawer as a potential weapon for some years, but never took one. As an act of vengeance I quickly got myself a job, house, car and girlfriend. All within one month of telling that shrink he was a murderous fascist.

The third therapist, (still about free will, discovering it) was actually good. He said I should just get the fuck out there and be awesome. Thats what I did.

See for example.

All of the other posters took the approach of “it is so therefore I say it”. Thats not free will.

Free will is what Im doing. Show you how it all ties up into precisely me, what I say, my personal brilliance, my way of tying things together -

this requires power, a degree of self knowledge that allows separation from all theory, all pre existing models.

Thats what it is, free will. To be free of all pre-existing models in the most fundamental motivation.

There can’t be any nonsense left in the mind to attain this autonomy. All thought needs to add up. So this is why I said before what I said to Artimas, that free will follows from discipline. It cant be given, it must be taken. And yeah that taking is determined by other forces - but also by the possibility of free will. That is, nothing stands in its way.

It isn’t determined that there cant be freedom. Therefore there is, eventually, most likely to be freedom.
The same with Being. It isn’t determined there must be nothing. Because nothing has no determining power.

Set your criteria first, what you out there to find?

Not demonstrably reducible, or demonstrably irreducible?

The world is apparently free to exist.

Does it want to exist?

Question of health.

So free will is also a question of health.

So really, the human question (bringing It to Earf) is: are you free to will, or are you wanting freedom?

in the first case, one is only free to will more of oneself. More of this freedom. Thats what is called self-valuing. Valuing in terms of ones own freedom. One is never tied to this except by loving it more than unfreedom.

So, in the final answer, will is bound by love. Love determines the highest determinators. And love is a rebellious bird.

There is a general assumption, often also by atheists, that it was an advance to go from paganism/shamanism/animism/pantheism to the monotheisms. I think this was a serious backstep. There are portions of the NT that I think are useful, though a lot of stuff that is not, but the replacement of those more complicated and human religions with the monotheisms has been a disaster.

most don’t understand it, it’s like watching a 3D movie, you won’t see the 3D aspect without the right glasses, this is similar with the monotheistic religions such as the holy bible, Hebrew, etc. A ton of it is metaphor for mankind’s own psyche, they gave a story of their obeying and following their instincts by being conscious of them. Let me try and find some examples.

Psalm 32:7
God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.

Wisdom is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.

Psalm 46:1
Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.

Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them(ignorant), for the subconscious, your wisdom and instinct goes with you; it will never leave you nor forsake you.

It is said as “he” because he individuals writing the stories were he and so it was automatic assumption based from their own identity/consciousness communicating with their subconscious.

~ Deuteronomy 31:6
You make your saving help my shield, and your right hand sustains me; your help has made me great. You provide a broad path for my feet, so that my ankles do not give way.

You make your saving help my shield(wisdom/light), and your right hand sustains me; your help has made me great. You provide such a broad path for my feet, so that my ankles do not give way.
(Work harder not smarter, opportunities from wisdom to make work and treading paths easier.) right hand if facing toward the north is representative of the sun, which is light and cause of life/wisdom and consciousness.

Psalm 18:35-36
“No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and this is their vindication from me,” declares the Lord.

No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you(truth/wisdom). This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and this is their vindication of me. (light/truth/wisdom/self)

Forgiveness of self is the savior of guilt/judgement.

It’s all internal.

I can do more, if you have specifics you want me to look at or try to translate, I will.

It was an advance kind of and that’s why it has been misunderstood or mistranslated as literal when it isn’t.

Paganism was the worship of many gods, not a one god, those many gods are images of the archetypes of mankind’s psyche. Imagery that is portrayed to the mind that one is humble to. Monotheism is the realization that all of those archetypes are actually a one god (truth) appearing in different forms to different individuals, diverse perception = diverse imagery portrayed to the individuals. We have been fighting a thousand + years over the same thing, just the confusion of the image being literal. Fighting over the messenger instead of taking the message.

It’s like fighting over an apple being red or a one type existing as true, while it still tastes the same and offers the same information to everyone, that it was embedded with by it being an apple. Does the image of the apple matter, if it tastes the same or the information is the same to both people? So then why are they fighting? The same can be said of /truth/ and /light/. We all see it but sometimes fail miserable in translating it to each other, which causes the fighting. Or if another individual is lacking the experience or imagery, then they can’t possibly understand what you are trying to explain, like describing psychedelics to someone who has never tried them.

Yes, the words appear determined, because they are, as is my right and freedom in determining to say them. But being, is free to oneself, like you stated. Expression is the only thing we truly have. When the words are inside my being, I have the freedom of determining which path I want to tread with those words, the how, why, when, what, who, where.

Freedom is built off of pain just like slavery. Both are sides to the same coin of pain. One optimistic(responsible/take action) and one pessimistic(victim/fear). Pain, consistency and following through, is discipline. Wisdom/discipline won’t let you have it without the power of handling it responsibly. It won’t set one up for failure in its pursuit. Have to make the pain worth it instead of let it eat you because pain is inevitable and infinite.

“I am the hurricane that destroys all in its path, and the spring that grants life, simultaneously.” Being nature, conscious of itself, is powerful.

This is basically what my OP is, reworded. My op states that sentience cannot occur at the polar extremes of either absolute determinism or absolute freewill, which I stated, leaves a remainder on both sides, some freewill and some determinism: compatibalism

Then are we all in agreement, or?

Seems like we re not dumb enough to keep disagreeing in perpetuity on matters which are of some real interest.
On top of that though there is the rank order of free will as a result of a honing process. Since free will comes about, rather than that it is present from the outset, free will is literally and in both ways the end of determination. Determination (not determinism) leads in the end to a state which can only further determine itself.
Much like parents can feed and kick around a Childe until it becomes powerful enough and rational enough to make its path for itself. As an analogy.

To address a post I missed, before I get round to newer posts:

The problem is that yes, the steps are as clear as day and I do understand both sides - that’s the whole reason I choose the better one and not the one with internal contradictions. I’m also well aware of Compatibilism, but internal contradictions aren’t dilluted away by compromise. Evolution also shows examples of species going extinct, so this argument from evolution isn’t exactly compelling.

Your attitude sounds like the logical fallacy of “Argument to Moderation”.

Done that, made a whole new original philosophy about it…

Yes, complexity - as has been covered by now - does not yield Free Will. It just means it’s more intellectually demanding to get your head around the deterministic mechanisms that predict complexity. Exploiting the system isn’t breaking the mechanisms, it just means complexity has successfully enabled mechanical manipulation of the mechanisms. This opens up a larger quantity of “things we know how to do within the system”. The layman use of “freedom” is synonymous with this, but it’s a misnomer because you’re still just as bound by the way nature works that can successfully be modelled in terms of rules, which are deterministic. Again, it’s not to say nature has Determinism built into it, I am no Essentialist, all it’s saying is that the authority of the ways in which nature appears to consistently work - in the cases of scientific laws working without exception - map nature with such precision that it may as well be its essence even if it isn’t its essence.

Maybe there will be a next step after Determinism, just like Determinism was the next step after Free Will. No doubt this is why we still have artifacts of its previous reign in our grammar. And to be pedantic, the ocean isn’t blue, it reflects mostly the sky, which is only sometimes blue in accordance with Rayleigh Scattering.

As above, there may very well be a next step, but the one we’re on now that’s up from Free Will, is Determinism. Keeping your backfoot on the lower step sounds more like denial to me. I am biased towards superior ideas, I am afraid, but little else. The whole reason I’ve broken out of a limbo like yours is because I am extremely “self” aware - so much so that the idea of self at all has dissipated away.

Why do you feel the need to assume such negativity in a person who doesn’t think like you? Perhaps you “feel” this is “logical/reasonable” (your words) because you consider yourself to be in such a positive state that can only be reached in the way you’ve reached it. If it’s not the only way then you are fallaciously “affirming the consequent”. Your experience is that most of the time when people dislike religion it’s over fear or ego (pride), which may very well simply be a reflection on the breadth of your inexperience! For example, many people in the modern world simply grow up secularly these days - was their lack of exposure to religion at an early, susceptible and credulous age causing them to not align with religion out of fear or ego (pride)? What about someone who took standards of knowledge seriously - who acquainted themselves with what constitutes knowledge, what the requirements are and what doesn’t pass these requirements? Philosophers ought to be wary of fallacies of questionable cause and improper premise. For example, if you are looking for evidence to support your religion or idea of spirituality, this is circular reasoning: assuming the conclusion. I am well aware of the tendency of the religious and spiritual types to fit evidence to their religion. If you are going to be strict about what constitutes knowledge, you ought to devise controls to isolate specific variables that are causing specific outcomes - you ought to test if what you thought was linked to something quantitatively is linked with more than random chance. Nothing religious or spiritual, however intense and life changing your experiences that you associate with them, turns out to be causal to any extent more than random chance - and this is with people trying their hardest to prove a connection for a very very very long time! Not one has legimitately succeeded. Sure, keep trying - we don’t want to fall for the problem of induction, but it’s worth thinking ruthlessly about what you are testing for when looking for evidence of religious and/or spiritual concepts. How exactly can you test for these things? The only negativity I’ve experienced towards religion/spirituality is how none of it remotely stands up to Epistemological requirements. I was raised around Christian practices, I was interested in Taoism for a few years, tried meditation on many occassions in formative years + would again if I felt like it, experimented with hallcinogenic drugs, I’ve read about a third of the Quran so far - of course I’m still interested in finding something of substance, and by no means am I assuming anything about what I will find even in spite of everything I’ve just said, but do not do not do not assume I’ve not looked hard enough or that I’ve been assuming outcomes in advance. Just because the evidence is all but closed, doesn’t mean my mind isn’t open, and just because I am siding with the overwhelming winner, doesn’t mean I am not looking for contradictory evidence. The only way I can justify being so sure is exactly because I am so open to alternatives - but being open doesn’t mean being accepting without discretion and standards. Saying no after due consideration doesn’t mean prior bias, and it doesn’t make one “negative” as a person.

Continuous experience isn’t “anything”, it just is. Doesn’t mean Free Will is in there somewhere, Free Will is just a model in terms of Discrete Experience much like Determinism, but older and far less refined. You can interpret Continuous Experience in terms of Discrete Experience in line with Free Will all you like, you’re just doing a crappy job compared to advanced evolutions beyond this, like Determinism.

Whether the universe is open, closed or flat is hardly as clear cut as you’re making out here. You shouldn’t proclaim to know these things with such certainty when even the best minds in physics are so far from confirming anything - as far as I know at least. Perhaps you’re on top of these issues or secretly at the cutting edge of research here in which case please enlighten us! I don’t want to assume but I have a good idea that you’re simply assuming.

Then you won’t mind if I too laugh at you for thinking I’m saying we’re not more complex than a cell or simple neuron. There’s a hell of a lot of these things, and their connections with each other outnumber atoms in the universe - and yet they all individually work very simply. They either fire or don’t, subject to deterministic conditions, it’s just keeping track of the sheer number of them that’s the current barrier to reading brains like computer bits. But the size of a problem doesn’t change the fact that it’s all based on extremely simple, understandable mechanisms. It only results in such a compelling outcome because of quantity. Again: quantity/complexity doesn’t yield “Free Will”.

“Confined” by Determinism? I’ll say it again, it’s not Determinism that confines, it’s Determinism that describes the confines of nature - and what is not confined by the four fundamental forces? Even consciousness relies on them by way of the neurons that don’t fire resulting in no conscioiusness. We aren’t any more free from the four fundamental forces now we know what they are and now we can use them to our own advantage, we just have more tools in our Deterministic toolkit. That doesn’t make free, it just gives more options, which is only mistakenly thought of as synonymous because the ways of nature remain - that we are not free from.

“Were you there?” May I laugh one more time? The only way we have to know what happened in the past, or what will happen in the future is Determinism. We know it works because of relentless testing and attempts to find contrary evidence and grounds to discredit theories - this is the scientific method. How can you predict the weather on the other side of the earth when you aren’t there? Determinism. Were you there when they elected a leader in another country? How do you know they did? Are you ever in the future when you predict a ball is going to bounce off a wall that you’re throwing it at? How can you know if you don’t live in the future? Nuff said. Don’t go all Creationist or Flat-Earther on me. The thing about science is that you can test Determinism yourself! I know you’re a nice, well-adjusted gentleman who accepts both sides of the argument, but just there it sounded a lot like you were casting unreasonable doubt on Determinism - not that it’s necessarily impossible that the four fundamental forces will change in the next second but y’know… I’ll take my chances. Again - I’m not being absolutist, but relativism can tend towards the absolute pretty far in certain cases! But we can know that any doubt won’t be replaced by contradictary ideas by means of logic. Perhaps the prevalence of logic will disappear in the next second as well?

Thank you for noticing. Nice to have someone who is philosophically versed around town.

Analogical cliffs/water or actual cliffs/water?

I can assure you that flies don’t dive under water because of their sense of self-identity.
I say it again: humans take 6 years to even cobble together a sense of identity, flies don’t live longer than a month.

Why don’t they dive underwater? They’re just following the sensory stimuli they find most attractive without any idea what they’re doing or why - which breeds out the suicidal ones, leaving the ones that don’t dive under water. Feral kids have an instinctual fear of heights - no identity needed here either. Neither has a sense of identity, and even if the feral kid cobbled something resembling one together, it doesn’t need it to survive - none of us do. We create one because it makes communication possible, the literal abstraction through language away from truth in order to transfer it to another, such that it can be translated back into concrete action.

They’re descriptions, not entities - in the same way a verb differs from a noun. We don’t need RM:AO or VO to understand that, do we? It’s a relative model, not absolute reality in itself.

Science would beg to differ.

Regrettably, language is the only tool we have to abstract as well as we currently can - from reality, accepting the illusion that the signifier (word) represents the signified (reality) - and back to reality after the intention of the illusion is understood. It’s not ideal, but by the acceptance of a lie, truth can be communicated.

Yes, and this is the alternative to the lie of language and identity (Discrete Experience) i.e. utility as opposed to truth. Truth is tautologous and doesn’t really say anything by itself - you need a lie to say something.