Revolution in Thought

[Logik]

Now don't project. You are arguing for finiteness, I am simply saying it is irrational.

By what criteria for "rational" vs "irrational" ?

Observe that you don't believe in "finiteness" but you sure believe in classification

Your actions contradict your words.

[Eodnhoj7]

Infinity is a process, and the mind exists through it by emptiness.

Deep.

depth requires relations, void is not even shallow.

Strictly all phenomenon as points of origin alone, necessitates 70 years is merely a division of one infinity from another as trying to pin point any finite foundation leads to Zeno's Paradox.

Which is why I reject foundationalism...

coherentism is it's own foundation, it makes little sense at all.

If infinity cannot be processed, then by default finiteness cannot be processed either.

My experiencees disagree.

Not when you are stuck staring at an empty point in space.

As to 1 decision ever second, that means the decision as 1 second is composed of either sub decisions and/or a deterministic model leading to the decision as fundamentally an undefined state of randomness.

You want to quantify the decision by degrees, when in all truth the degree is contradictory by it's own nature and effectively is just made up. The math section observing the proof where two 90 degree angles are not equal justifies this claim.

I already pointed it out, but let me state it again.

You've uncovered the principle of explosion and you are having fun blowing everything up.
And you are leveraging infinities to obliterate everything in sight. You'll get bored eventually.

I have no patience for infinities.

Creative Destruction is the correct "law", and bored?...younare the one claiming an absence of patience.

[Eodnhoj7]

Now don't project. You are arguing for finiteness, I am simply saying it is irrational.

By what criteria for "rational" vs "irrational" ?

Observe that you don't believe in "finiteness" but you sure believe in classification

Your actions contradict your words.

No, because my premise is paradox which observes a medical synthetic terms as always present. I claim void as origin.

1. All rationality is the individuation of one irrational into another.

2. All irrationality the absence of individuation.

3. However all irrationals, are premised in rationals (irrational numbers as a continuum of rational numbers) as a continuum.

4. Rationality leads to irrationality, irrationality leads to rationality.

5. Rationality and Irrationality exist through eachother as 1 which is irrational; hence true because all unity is true.

6. Rationality and irrationality are separate as 2 which is rational; hence false because they are contradictory.

7. Points 1 through 7 are simultaneously true, false and neutral.

[henry quirk]

"There are other definitions, sure, these definitions basically say the same thing, namely being able to choose without constraint and without compulsion."

There's a difference between the ones I posted and the one your dad used. That difference is critical.


As for the rest: all your dad is saying is 'the individual always operates out of self-interest'. This is not a remarkable observation. I'm made that observation many times in-forum.

I'm not seein' how my being self-interested makes me sumthin' other than a free will.

Being self-interested in 'sane'.

I must eat or I die, I must drink or I die, I must self-defend or I die, I must eliminate bodily waste or I die, and on and on.

Free will never is and never was about omnipotence/omniscience or unfettered choice (in the same way a 'free market' has nuthin' to do with gettin' goods gratis). And it ain't about 'good & evil' either (hint, hint). Free will (agent causation) is only about the individual choosing (I must eat but I choose when, where, and what; I choose how little or much I exert myself in gettin' food or the food I want; I choose whether 'law' will prohibit me in gettin' food, etc.). The agent is bound up in the world, within and without. Influences (some primally powerful) abound, but there are are no 'determiners' of the agent.

To the extent your dad and me agree: great!. Where we disagree it's cuz he has a cockeyed notion of 'free will' (which is not a quality, characteristic, trait, or substance but is a person, an individual, the agent).

[Eodnhoj7]

"There are other definitions, sure, these definitions basically say the same thing, namely being able to choose without constraint and without compulsion."

There's a difference between the ones I posted and the one your dad used. That difference is critical.


As for the rest: all your dad is saying is 'the individual always operates out of self-interest'. This is not a remarkable observation. I'm made that observation many times in-forum.

I'm not seein' how my being self-interested makes me sumthin' other than a free will.

Being self-interested in 'sane'.

I must eat or I die, I must drink or I die, I must self-defend or I die, I must eliminate bodily waste or I die, and on and on.

Free will is and never was about omnipotence/omniscience or unfettered choice (in the same way a 'free market' has nuthin' to do with gettin' goods gratis). And it ain't about 'good & evil' either (hint, hint). Free will (agent causation) is only about the individual choosing (I must eat but I choose when, where, and what; I choose how little or much I exert myself in gettin' food or the food I want; I choose whether 'law' will prohibit me in gettin' food, etc.). The agent is bound up in the world, within and without. Influences (some primally powerful) abound, but there are are no 'determiners' of the agent.

To the extent your dad and me agree: great!. Where we disagree it's cuz he has a cockeyed notion of 'free will' (which is not a quality, characteristic, trait, or substance but is a person, an individual, the agent).

Actually the nature of self interest has an inherent problem of definition relative to the fact all relations constitute a sense of self. Kindness to a stranger can be a completely selfish and morally justifiable act when viewing the stranger as an extension of oneself.

Your premise lies in a problem of measurement.

[henry quirk]

"Actually the nature of self interest has an inherent problem of definition relative to the fact all relations constitute a sense of self. Kindness to a stranger can be a completely selfish and morally justifiable act when viewing the stranger as an extension of oneself."

Yeah, that's not how my head works. I'm (minimally, sensibly) kind to the stranger cuz (most of the time) there's more profit in kindness than in aggression (that profit, most of the time, being the stranger goes about his business and leaves me to mine). Now, with loved ones you're nearly at bull's eye. I'm invested in those people, they matter to me (in some cases they matter to me as much as I matter to myself [and in the case of my kid he matters more]).

#

"Your premise lies in a problem of measurement."

More a matter of priority, I think, and not so much a problem.

[Logik]

No, because my premise is paradox which observes a medical synthetic terms as always present. I claim void as origin.

And I already pointed out that you are abusing the principle of explosion.

From a paradox/contradiction anything follows.

1. All rationality is the individuation of one irrational into another.

2. All irrationality the absence of individuation.

3. However all irrationals, are premised in rationals (irrational numbers as a continuum of rational numbers) as a continuum.

4. Rationality leads to irrationality, irrationality leads to rationality.

5. Rationality and Irrationality exist through eachother as 1 which is irrational; hence true because all unity is true.

6. Rationality and irrationality are separate as 2 which is rational; hence false because they are contradictory.

7. Points 1 through 7 are simultaneously true, false and neutral.

This is the problem with valuing symmetry. You miss the elephant in the room.

I am as biased as it gets when it comes to the "harm/no-harm" dualism.

I insist on asymmetry.

[Logik]

"There are other definitions, sure, these definitions basically say the same thing, namely being able to choose without constraint and without compulsion."

There's a difference between the ones I posted and the one your dad used. That difference is critical.


As for the rest: all your dad is saying is 'the individual always operates out of self-interest'. This is not a remarkable observation. I'm made that observation many times in-forum.

I'm not seein' how my being self-interested makes me sumthin' other than a free will.

Being self-interested in 'sane'.

I must eat or I die, I must drink or I die, I must self-defend or I die, I must eliminate bodily waste or I die, and on and on.

Free will never is and never was about omnipotence/omniscience or unfettered choice (in the same way a 'free market' has nuthin' to do with gettin' goods gratis). And it ain't about 'good & evil' either (hint, hint). Free will (agent causation) is only about the individual choosing (I must eat but I choose when, where, and what; I choose how little or much I exert myself in gettin' food or the food I want; I choose whether 'law' will prohibit me in gettin' food, etc.). The agent is bound up in the world, within and without. Influences (some primally powerful) abound, but there are are no 'determiners' of the agent.

To the extent your dad and me agree: great!. Where we disagree it's cuz he has a cockeyed notion of 'free will' (which is not a quality, characteristic, trait, or substance but is a person, an individual, the agent).

Free will is an astute observation about the human condition.

Free will points out that there is no extrinsic source of values. And you can't make ANY choices without a set of values.

There is nobody to tell you what you should do.
There is nobody to tell you what you should think.
There is nobody to look after your own interests.

Free will means that if/when a choice exists there is no extrinsic source of answers as to whether "left" or "right" is the correct choice.

Free will is a label which attempts to make people embrace their power, not abdicate it.

Free will is a colloquial term which says "Humans are the only Oracle machines" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote:

henry wrote:
"the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints"
I agree.

But , Peacegirl, the quote from Henry is a definition of absolute or uncaused, Free Will. Can you not see that? How can you or anyone else act independently of natural, social, or divine restraints? If uncaused will were possible, which it is not, how could you act with reason and forethought?

Henry himself appears not to have seen that the definition that I quoted is about uncaused will. How can what Henry chooses to do be caused by any other means than natural, social, or divine?

[peacegirl]

"There are other definitions, sure, these definitions basically say the same thing, namely being able to choose without constraint and without compulsion."

There's a difference between the ones I posted and the one your dad used. That difference is critical.

Show me where the difference is critical.

As for the rest: all your dad is saying is 'the individual always operates out of self-interest'. This is not a remarkable observation. I'm made that observation many times in-forum.

Of course we all do things in self-interest even when we're altruistic.

I'm not seein' how my being self-interested makes me sumthin' other than a free will.

Being self-interested in 'sane'.

I must eat or I die, I must drink or I die, I must self-defend or I die, I must eliminate bodily waste or I die, and on and on.

Very true, but that was not his proof that man's will is not free.

Free will never is and never was about omnipotence/omniscience or unfettered choice (in the same way a 'free market' has nuthin' to do with gettin' goods gratis). And it ain't about 'good & evil' either (hint, hint). Free will (agent causation) is only about the individual choosing (I must eat but I choose when, where, and what; I choose how little or much I exert myself in gettin' food or the food I want; I choose whether 'law' will prohibit me in gettin' food, etc.). The agent is bound up in the world, within and without. Influences (some primally powerful) abound, but there are are no 'determiners' of the agent.

Henry, you are not following him. There is no agent causation (or determiners) where a prediction can be made with 100% accuracy, or where a particular choice has been made in advance, in other words, without our consent. This does not turn us into blind automatons which many people fear determinism does. You are going by the old definition, which says if free will is false, the opposite is that we are caused by antecedent events. This is where the crux of the problem lies. IN THE DEFINITION. Remember, a definition is only as good as the reality it reflects. Try to understand this one excerpt. Don't rush through it to try to prove him wrong.

The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage.

To the extent your dad and me agree: great!. Where we disagree it's cuz he has a cockeyed notion of 'free will' (which is not a quality, characteristic, trait, or substance but is a person, an individual, the agent).

His notion of free will is not cockeyed. For the purposes of the free will/determinism debate, free will means that we are able to choose A or B equally, without necessity or compulsion. Where did you think he took the agent out of the equation? Let's stay on the same page.

[Logik]

For the purposes of the free will/determinism debate, free will means that we are able to choose A or B equally, without necessity or compulsion.

You are constraining the context artificially. What do A and B represent?

I am clearly unable to equally choose between:
A: A BLT sandwich
and
B: A weekend trip to Saturn

Because reasons. Reasons that have nothing to do with necessity OR compulsion.

[peacegirl]

For the purposes of the free will/determinism debate, free will means that we are able to choose A or B equally, without necessity or compulsion.

You are constraining the context artificially. What do A and B represent?

I am clearly unable to equally choose between:
A: A BLT sandwich
and
B: A weekend trip to Saturn

Because reasons.

Yes, we use our reasoning to determine what we should do next. And, yes, our choices are limited by our present life situation and the realities that go with it. Taking a trip to Saturn is not something we can do, so that is not a choice we are considering. But we can choose between a BLT sandwich or an egg sandwich or not eating either. We are compelled to choose the option that gives us the greater satisfaction regardless of the options being considered and regardless of the importance of those differences. Obviously, some differences are much more important in their choice value than others, so it takes a more careful consideration to decide which choice to go with, but that doesn't change the direction our desire forces or compels us to take.

[Logik]

Yes, we use our reasoning to determine what we should do next. And, yes, our choices are limited by our present life situation and the realities that go with it.

Some times they are. Some times they aren't.

Some people are able to see more options than others.
Some people have the uncanny skill to ignore options that are obvious to a 5 year old.

Some days you may be tired and emotional so you can't think out of the box.
Some days you may be on your A-game and see all options with perfect clarity.

You still have some say towards engineering your surroundings, and your social circle, and your mental state, and your emotional state so THAT you are on your A-game as often as possible. Some people are so anxiety-ridden that their only solution around their own brains is medication.

There is no absolute and universal answer here. Everybody is different. I don't know what makes you the best version of you.

Taking a trip to Saturn is not something we can do, so that is not a choice we are considering.

But we can choose between a BLT sandwich or an egg sandwich or not eating either.

False trichotomy. What is it that I 'really' want? To eat. Or to eat a BLT sandwich?

Maybe I am just being fussy? It's BLT or nothing!
Maybe I am starving? I will settle for a week-old toasted cheese!

We are compelled to choose the option that gives us the greater satisfaction regardless of the options being considered and regardless of the importance of those differences.

So you are saying that we have no choice between immediate satisfaction or delayed satisfaction?

It's called time-preference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference

Obviously, some differences are much more important in their choice value than others, so it takes a more careful consideration to decide which choice to go with, but that doesn't change the direction our desire forces or compels us to take.

Yes. Long-term thinking is INCREDIBLY important to me. So important that I am willing to endure short-term discomfort for long term gains.

Delayed gratification gives me satisfaction! So I choose not to choose some options.

Some people have more self-discipline and tolerance of discomfort than others.

You can even go as far as calling me a masochist, but you can't claim that masochism is a bad thing if applied to combating the harm caused by 'immediate gratification'

[peacegirl]

For the purposes of the free will/determinism debate, free will means that we are able to choose A or B equally, without necessity or compulsion.

You are constraining the context artificially. What do A and B represent?

A and B represent ANY choice you are contemplating.

[peacegirl]

Yes, we use our reasoning to determine what we should do next. And, yes, our choices are limited by our present life situation and the realities that go with it.

Some times they are. Some times they aren't.

Some people are able to see more options than others.
Some people have the uncanny skill to ignore options that are obvious to a 5 year old.

Some days you may be tired and emotional so you can't think out of the box.
Some days you may be on your A-game and see all options with perfect clarity.

You still have some say towards engineering your surroundings, and your social circle, and your mental state, and your emotional state so THAT you are on your A-game as often as possible. Some people are so anxiety-ridden that their only solution around their own brains is medication.

There is no absolute and universal answer here. Everybody is different. I don't know what makes you the best version of you.

There actually is a universal answer, but the way determinism is correctly defined, it does not force a choice on anyone like a domino where we have no say. I think the fear is that we would become robots. But it's a mistaken conception.

A 5 year old will obviously make different choices based on his limited experience which is limited in comparison to someone who has had more experience. This does not negate the FACT that each individual, based on his age, heredity, experiences, and immediate environment, dictate what he will prefer when comparing choices. He cannot NOT prefer what he PREFERS.

Taking a trip to Saturn is not something we can do, so that is not a choice we are considering.

But we can choose between a BLT sandwich or an egg sandwich or not eating either.

False trichotomy. What is it that I 'really' want? To eat. Or to eat a BLT sandwich?

It's not a false trichotomy because it was just an example. You could have many choices that you are thinking through to determine which choice is the most preferable in your case.

Maybe I am just being fussy? It's BLT or nothing!
Maybe I am starving? I will settle for a week-old toasted cheese!

And a week-old toasted cheese would be your preference, for whatever reason. Maybe you didn't want to go out and buy more food. Maybe the tomato in the BLT sandwich was rotten and you didn't realize until you took a bite. This doesn't change the direction we are compelled to go. Remember, we are not talking about options before making a choice. We are talking about the choice that we were compelled to make based on our (being the agent) thought process. We can't leave the agent out, which the present definition does, causing a lot of confusion.

We are compelled to choose the option that gives us the greater satisfaction regardless of the options being considered and regardless of the importance of those differences.

So you are saying that we have no choice between immediate satisfaction or delayed satisfaction?

It's called time-preference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference

Nooo Logik, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that each individual, given his experiences, may get greater satisfaction out of delaying a choice for a greater pay-off (so to speak) later on. This is HIS preference in the direction of greater satisfaction. Some people get greater satisfaction, based on their life experiences up to this point, along with their genetics, to choose an immediate gratification as their preference, even if they know it may not be in their best interest in the long run.

Obviously, some differences are much more important in their choice value than others, so it takes a more careful consideration to decide which choice to go with, but that doesn't change the direction our desire forces or compels us to take.

Yes. Long-term thinking is INCREDIBLY important to me. So important that I am willing to endure short-term discomfort for long term gains.

Delayed gratification gives me satisfaction! So I choose not to choose some options.

Some people have more self-discipline and tolerance of discomfort than others.

You can even go as far as calling me a masochist, but you can't claim that masochism is a bad thing if applied to combating the harm caused by 'immediate gratification'

That's exactly right. You have gained enough experience to know that immediate gratification is only immediate and gives you no personal gain in the long run. So you choose to delay what you believe is in your best interest therefore your choice, your preference, in the direction of GREATER SATISFACTION is to hold off for a greater reward later. This in no way disproves what I'm talking about. It confirms it.