Freewill exists

What happens in society, isn’t that. It’s “this is truth” and it’s looked at as false until experienced with the correct variables that show it is indeed true. Trial and error. Ones vision is what creates a falsity, truth just is.

If you’ve been told a story that is truth, but looked at it as false, is it false? Based on ones /own/ vision of that story as literal instead of metaphorical? What if you don’t understand the language of the story being depicted? Do you still have grounds to claim what it is?

There’s debate amongst artists whether to leave art open to interpretation, or to deliver a message. Does the artist intend one or the other? And if they choose the former, of course the experiencer of said art has grounds to claim what it is. If the artist chooses the latter, then those grounds are removed from the feet of the experiencer. A political analogy might be a democracy versus a dictatorship. A democratic artist might insert intricate expressions of meaning into a story that might even be picked up by the observer - an attraction to the treasure hunter, or explorer types. A dictatorial one might do the same, in which case the experiencer has no grounds to claim what it is unless they pick up on exactly the intended message. The problem is: how do you know the intention of the artist? If they tell you, the piece of art may as well be dictatorial either way: either you are commanded to make up your own interpretation or you are commanded to receive the intended interpretation.

So what is the intention of the story?

This is the question that must answered before your question can be answered.

Innocence until proven guilty: I support this. “One’s vision”, yes, is an imperfect judgement - it opens up the possibility of falsity, and also truth - I would say relatively so, as Discrete Experience. Truth just “is”, indeed: Continuous Experience.

When Free Will is proven guilty, it was treated as innocent until then, and now not so. Using language in a way proven false, but to deliver truth: what then? Truth, from which language is abstracted, just “is”. Language lies that it is not “just is”, in order to transfer meaning for the purposes of utility - language is like vision: creating relative falsity/truthfulness in a transitive way: “true TO ” as oppossed to simply “True” intransitively.

quote=“Meno_”]

[/quote

Its simpler to call that a metaphor, it doesn’t lie, its merely an intermediary between image and language, it has no intention to deceive.

Deception occurs when literal and figurative levels are conflated, onto singular levels, whereas multiple levels of metaphor present different meanings and images.

There usually is no intentionality involved, but a failure to express meaning and visualization on sensible levels.

In politics, art, the art of philosophy, or the philosophy art, a total absurd reduction may compete for manifest , or, exclusive dominance. It entails no will to intentionally deceive, its primary manifestation belongs to primary syntactical usage.

There is this simple distinction which logic and.language require by definition, before the advent to complexity can be argued with political and aesthetic overtones.( transcendental)

Merely a necessary logical requirement of arguability, of a image/language related analogy. Similarity posits the argument within strictly linguistic analysis, without recourse to the imagination.

Ref:
Metaphoric Connections and Incubation :
Our personal inner language depends of the imagination to make connections and enable
expression. Egan (1992) concisely describes the work of the imagination by saying that
“imagination lies at a kind of crux where perception, memory, idea generation, emotion,
metaphor, and no doubt other labeled features of our lives, intersect and interact” (p. 3). In fact,
the imagination is the intersectiion itself.
Lakoff and Johnson (2003) describe abstract concepts as having “a literal core but
…extended by metaphors, often by many mutually inconsistent metaphors. Abstract concepts are
not complete without metaphors. For example, love is not love without metaphors of magic,
attraction, madness, union, nurturance and so on” (p. 272).

Sillouette,

I just have a general statement for you that might not seem relevant … I’m saying this with all of your posts here swirling in at the same time:

“I am speaking”, is a phrase where reference and that being referred to, co exist, they overlap.

You tend to assume a law of mutual exclusivity, when there are in fact verifiable convergences.

Boy did you mess up your quotations just now :wink:

A metaphor literally means carrying beyond, by derivation, so carrying beyond truth is a…? Well you could say that calling it a lie would be a metaphor :smiley:

Hyperbole aside, I think my message is clear: signifiers are not the signified, it would be a lie to say they were - so yes, it is deception to treat them as such. This is why I make the distinction. Logic is quite literal, I’m sure you will agree, so its use on the metaphor of language is only really appropriate in the realm of signifiers. Logic is derived from the greek for speech - it is language, and in older times all reasoning was performed when speaking. Speech, language, logic: it is abstraction… from the real/concrete.

Perhaps this is why language is most beautiful in poetry - where it is the metaphor of metaphors, metaphorically speaking.

I am not speaking of metaphore as meaning, but as a functional nexus.
And the point that meaning may be confined to a literal interpretation is well founded. But that strictly confines it to the most basic level of understanding.
The idea is Yours, when You introduced symbolically rich areas of experience dealing with aesthetics and politics. You are arguing meaning from both ends, comingling them.
That what You are doing is intentional, or not, comes up, in a formative sense, but not without the reductive residue, or where from it’s derived.
I did, after all, support my contention, at least in part. You’re not taking it
in consideration, shows some of either, denial and identification of expurgating fault. Most probably it is honest, but within an unresolved, unconscious source.

The sign/signal analogy is interesting in situ, but in a transcendental sense can be ‘transferred’ to a ‘hunter becoming the hunted’ scenario.

Both of us, intentionally are trying to get it some nexual content of truth, ultimately related to the question of free will, generally within shifting contexts of awareness, morally satisfying congruence within defined levels of conscious-sub conscious modality, where agreement is the preferred object. I use object within the transcendental ideal and not intention, for transcendent object appears as more functionally constituted, whereas intention and intentionality can present another can of beans to dissect.

Logic doesn’t exist independent of reason. One can exercise logic, without reason. Which is done, a lot with science only valuing the empirical and then science wonders why they have no answers to certain facets of reality and the existence of psyche. That’s where philosophy comes to play and the consistency of reason and logic through diversity is where one may solidify the answer as empirical by observing the consistency. How can subjectivity synchronize otherwise? Typically it doesn’t, unless executing logic and reason together of which leads diverse paths to the same truths.

There is a reason Spock and Kirk did well together, it wasn’t because they relied solely on logic.

Like how many associate the Bible and religious/mythological with literal and then say it doesn’t make sense. Yes, of course it doesn’t, when you look at it literally/logically and without reason. If you execute your search with both reason and logic and making sense of it is your intent, it will make sense.

Silhouette, you seem to have made the easily observable mistake of only thinking present tense and solely logical. Determinism is not the step that comes after freewill, you must assert us all as retards to not understand cause and effect exists, I’m near positive the cave men had that figured out when they discovered “fire hot”. If no consciousness, there’d be no understanding of fire or of cause and effect regardless, only a state of subconscious obeying of instinct.

Determinism was active before a free will, which was the subconscious state of which we did not understand but instead only had experience and knowledge of such experience, there was no understanding and responsibility, innocence by confinement of cause and effect with no wisdom.

You can point your finger now and say a free will does not exist, only because you’re not in a state of subconsciousness only now. You possess consciousness, basically, you can only say free will doesn’t exist, because you have a free will to do such. Consciousness was the will of which was granted freedom by the ability to understand ones own diversity/uniqueness and pursue wisdom in everything.

I’m not sure how one isn’t free when not confined in the first place… a dog is confined within its own system of habitat, it doesn’t understand unless through direct experience, we can understand without relying only upon direct experience, we have multiple methods.

Just semantics, all it is really. I don’t think we’re confused on what the self is, it’s the deep down suppressed individual that one may not be aware of in a given present moment unless reflecting upon past and future, one can live their entire life as a byproduct of environment and with an indoctrinated identity.

Silhouette,

You need to read something like this before you hinge your whole argument on it:

mytutor.co.uk/answers/10942 … -fatalism/

And you’re whole thing about needing to lie to communicate… why isn’t that a lie? If that is a lie, by its own axiom, then that means that you don’t have to lie to communicate.

so what was i saying before i was so rudely interrupted by my job, earlier. oh yeah… i remember.

okay so to be a self cause, a thing’s existence must pertain to the essence of its being such that it can be conceived of through itself… or as spinz puts it: ‘that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.’

what the heck does that mean? well it kinda means only a thing that has to exist is not dependent or constrained by anything else in order to exist… that is, it cannot be said to be an effect of any other cause because it’s existence is not granted or determined by anything else. it’s very nature involves existence, and this is not compelled or brought into being by anything. he goes on to say:

‘That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.’

human beings are one such ‘thing’. their essence does not involve existence - they don’t have to exist - and they can be thought of as a particular mode or modification of that thing which has as its essence it’s very existence. spinz calls it ‘substance’, and this exists prior to any of its modifications. a particular modification is causally necessary, but contingent insofar as it is not its own cause, i.e., it depends on something other than itself to exist. namely, the particular modification nature takes in the event that a human being comes into being. human beings are therefore posterior to substance and cannot be self-caused, since only substance, which has as it’s essence its very existence, cannot exist as part of something else… as an effect of something else.

this basically means that if a thing can be conceived of as non-existent, its essence does not involve existence. because we can’t conceive of nature (substance) as not existing, at least one thing has no cause prior to itself which brought it into being… while the human being, on the other hand, does not have to exist, and is neither its own cause, or free from being caused by something other than itself. ergo; there is no freewill.

i will now take your questions (which i probably won’t answer).

Lol, thanks for providing a link to an explanation that pretty much exactly re-iterates my points :-"

I mean, the clue is in the website pathing: “A-Level”. This may not be known to everyone here, but that’s the UK equivalent of high school juniors and seniors in the US - so one of the most basic of philosophical distinctions.

Why are you recommending I read something that says what I’m already saying? Or are you not reading what I’m saying?

And the “lie to communicate” thing, as I just explained in my response to barbarianhorde is a means not ends thing. The means are a lie, the ends can result in truth - just like all stories.

Are you saying humanity is separate from nature? If you imply so then no, we weren’t self caused. We are nature, conscious of itself, how is that not self causation? I am the very cause and effect of nature itself and it’s millions of years of trial and error of which bred more and more complexity. What’s consciousness if not conceived from itself and the levels of unconscious/subconscious? The idea is only labeled an idea to the conscious state of which was inevitable. We named what already had existed after it existed. Language doesn’t dictate that we were not indeed self conceived by nature itself, of which we are.

We are an infinitely long string of which is the self causation of nature, the inverting of consciousness, the mirror, the loop.

Ok and consciousness /has/ to exist for there to be an observable will, of which was self causation through nature itself. Yes, nature is a collection of different levels of consciousness, how do I know this? Well what are we, are you asserting there is no sub/unconscious state to man?

So explain, what’s external to nature and it’s layers of overlapping un/sub/conscious? Nature determined itself free, hence, consciousness… I really don’t understand how this is missed and why the separation of man and nature is still conflated or missed.

Human beings may not have to exist, but consciousness does due to its being inevitable to a timeless reality/existence of ever evolving complex change. So tell me, did man not come from nature or did it? Even if not human being, consciousness would have been manifested through nature, what are other species if not? What’s existence at all, if not progressive complexity in and of itself?

Consciousness is nature. Man is nature caused by itself… did we not /cause/ our own survival by adaptation and endurance? If not self caused, why not extinction? Like we haven’t seen other species perish?

The Simplest mistake can form an entire opposition. Man is not separate from nature, it is in itself conscious.

I agree, and that means “Determinism” is Unnatural.

I have absolutely no clue why you’re LOLing this… by multiple definitions, the distinction that this essay and dictionaries try to make is that fatalism still allows choice, even though the end result is the same… it’s a form of theistic molonism.

determinism means that there is no choice whatsoever, all actions human and otherwise are predetermined at every point.

It was the definition of determinism that I was using when stating that it’s unfalsifiable.

You had inverse definitions for fatalism and determinism, when you stated, in argument to this point, that you weren’t a fatalist but rather a determinist.

Your LOL here is bizarre.

Your waffling on the lie to tell a truth doesn’t work when the truth is not speaking at all. You are now flailing at this point, and it looks more pathetic as each additional post comes.

right, and impossible, because nature isn’t a ‘determiner’. but this is no refutation of causality. it seems like it is because of the way you understand the word ‘determine’. it’s become a linguistic habit in philosophy to equivocate the words ‘cause’ and ‘determine’. first look at this excellent post:

okay so you got all that figured out now and the word ‘determine’ is out of the way forevermore. but can the same be said about what ‘cause’ means, and whether or not such a thing can be attributed to nature… and not just a ‘little’, but absolutely and completely.

the next step is to recognize the difference in meaning of the words ‘cause’ and ‘reason’. this is another linguistic habit that contributes to a misunderstanding of causality. we tend to think of them as the same, but they aren’t. only in the case of a deliberating determiner can there be a ‘reason’; urwrong finds himself at the mall and remembers that he wanted to go shopping. he then thinks of his reason for being at the mall as the cause for him being at the mall… but it’s not. not metaphysically, anyway. urwrong’s intention has no causal agency; it doesn’t make things happen in the physical world. the thought ‘i’d like to go to the mall’ corresponds with the action of going, but doesn’t cause it, because thoughts can’t be causes. and yet you’re certain that your reason for going was also the cause of your going. this is not your fault, but rene’s (descartes).

so since nature doesn’t determine anything, it has no reasons… and since urwrong is a determiner who doesn’t cause anything, he has only reasons… which, incidentally, he mistakes as causes.

are you picking up what i’m puttin’ down, dude?

Oh my goodness, this is one of the lamest arguments I’ve seen in a long time.

This entire post is moot if anyone just adds the word “non anthropomorphic” before they use one of these words.

I wanted to go to the mall be-CAUSE of two main reasons:

  1. A movie
  2. Go to a favorite restaurant for their pot-stickers

The movie wasn’t that great, but I had to see it anyway. The pot-stickers were delicious though, always a big treat, and made the whole trip worthwhile.

Pot-stickers were the first cause, the Prima Causa, the driving-force for going to the mall. To eat. To live. To add to my Will-To-Power.

Nuh-uh. your mom is moot.

And even on top of your want and desire or attributing value to the cause of going, you could have subconsciously wanted to go as well, which al it of times people subconsciously do things or something surfaces from that aspect of mind to the conscious mind, there’s multiple causations I’d say, in reality.