Freeing of the Will

[Iwannaplato]

Is it anything more than this, a compulsion to challenge presumed Absolute Authority???

Aha, is that what you think you are going here: challenging presumed absolute authority?

This is a just bunch of people on the internet with no power over you or each other. Even though you tend to just assert things, like an absolute authority, I don't assume you consider yourself one.

[Wizard22]

What do you point to that led to the choice?

A lot of the influence is unknown, and perhaps unknowable. Here is the more important distinction. A choice, like a cause, is ongoing. It is not a clear, distinct, absolute "moment in time". A single "choice" may represent...10 seconds, or 10 minutes, or 10 years. Same with Causality. The main problem is that the human mind looks for certainty and absolution. It wants to define and confine choice and causality down to a clear unit. But this is not true. And it is the fault of Determinism/Determinists.

Because the root 'causes' cannot be pinned down.

It's worse with human motivations. Because if you corner a person about his or her Choice, then there is always plausible deniability compared to some impossible, utopian standard. "Ohhh...I didn't mean THAT to happen!" And because nothing is ever perfect, no Will ever complete, human institutions give people in general "the benefit of the doubt". This applies to practical cases like car accidents, where one party blames the other. And the 'cause', like the 'choice', remains uncertain. Liability requires that both parties simply move on, and Insurance to often times pay out both sides.

Insurance represents a human intervention to the impracticality of choice, cause, and consequence.

3) Further you have said, or implied that animals do not have free will - see your OP. Why not? They make choices, and some animals have far greater will than others. And many animals have free time, many of the social mammals. They do not have to spend all their time defending themselves or finding food. They play, socialize, groom, have sex for fun, masturbate. And they do different things on different days. Thus, they make choices, and some have greater wills. How do you know they don't have free will?

Free-Will up to a point, up to a standard, a standard measurement or unit. What does a human consider "free-will"? See my interaction with Harbal just ahead. Levitation. Must humans levitate, in order to "prove free-will once and for all"?

A hummingbird laughs at the notion. They can levitate just fine, already.

"But that's not what I meant!" replies the Determinist.

And I agree, humans have unique types of free-will, unique types of abilities, that other mammals, and other animals, simply do not have.


(Most of this is in intelligence, technology, rationalization, logic, reasoning, and imagination)

[Harbal]

At least you are good for a small annoyance and distraction.

You ain't seen nothin' yet, boy.

[Wizard22]

Is that it, that one has a rich fantasy life?

Lay out your answer.

Is that it for you?

You are imposing your unspoken limits onto me, so I want to know precisely what your limits are!

You had a thought. Is that your soaring?

(your link to impossible you've tried did not work for me)

I fixed the link, it should work now.

[Wizard22]

Aha, is that what you think you are going here: challenging presumed absolute authority?

This is a just bunch of people on the internet with no power over you or each other. Even though you tend to just assert things, like an absolute authority, I don't assume you consider yourself one.

That's not what I meant. You're missing the point.

The point is that people generally presume free-will is in direct relation to some absolute authority, for the reasons and causes I've outlined.

My re-presentation of free-will is that it is not against any absolute authority per se, but it is necessarily against unconscious biases and expectations that people have, usually through indoctrination in life, limited by quality of education, along with physical and mental—real and actual limitations from person to person, specie to specie, or perhaps more importantly, iq to iq.

[Iwannaplato]

What do you point to that led to the choice?

A lot of the influence is unknown, and perhaps unknowable. Here is the more important distinction. A choice, like a cause, is ongoing. It is not a clear, distinct, absolute "moment in time". A single "choice" may represent...10 seconds, or 10 minutes, or 10 years. Same with Causality. The main problem is that the human mind looks for certainty and absolution. It wants to define and confine choice and causality down to a clear unit. But this is not true. And it is the fault of Determinism/Determinists.

Because the root 'causes' cannot be pinned down.

It seems to me you've said you don't know. The determinists don't know and you don't know.

3) Further you have said, or implied that animals do not have free will - see your
Free-Will up to a point, up to a standard, a standard measurement or unit.

So, animals have free will.

A hummingbird laughs at the notion. They can levitate just fine, already.

"But that's not what I meant!" replies the Determinist.

I haven't raised the issue of levitation. So I don't know what you are on about here.

And I agree, humans have unique types of free-will, unique types of abilities, that other mammals, and other animals, simply do not have.

Sure, but above you agreed animals have free will.

[Iwannaplato]

Is that it, that one has a rich fantasy life?
Is that it for you?

You are imposing your unspoken limits onto me, so I want to know precisely what your limits are!

OK, let me see if I understand this. You believe in free will yet somehow I imposed limits on you by asking you a question?
Why not just answer the question and stop grandstanding. Oh, you imposed limits on me....goes away without answering the question.

You had a thought. Is that your soaring?

I fixed the link, it should work now.

Great, but the link was about soaring. You could have answered, but again you didn't.

EDIT: now I looked at the link. Could you explain the impossible that you've done? I read the post. Do you mean considering possible things about physics? YOu think determinists don't do that? And let's be clear, so it's not actually about using freedom in the world. Like being told 'no one can do X' and then trying to do it. It's not about doing amazing things. This soaring, this doing the impossible, it's coming up with ideas that might be true? Jeez, I've been doing that since I was a very little boy.- What makes you think most people can be described as rolling in the mud like pigs?

You said...

Free to do everything physically possible, and free to do everything physically impossible. All of it.

And your example is that you speculated about something in physics??? Sure, thinking is a kind of doing, but it's not impossible nor does it seems like soaring to me. I thought you meant actually doing stuff in the world.

[Wizard22]

Sure, but above you agreed animals have free will.

Kind of, but not really.

OK, let me see if I understand this. You believe in free will yet somehow I imposed limits on you by asking you a question?
Why not just answer the question and stop grandstanding. Oh, you imposed limits on me....goes away without answering the question.

Because your limits are not my limits, and my limits are not your limits.

I don't want you to misunderstand this difference. And until you do show me you do understand it, I can't let you put your limitations upon me, as a premise, and then expect from me "the impossible".

Great, but the link was about soaring. You could have answered, but again you didn't.

EDIT: now I looked at the link. Could you explain the impossible that you've done? I read the post. Do you mean speculating about physics?

It's not speculation if it's true.

What do you believe you know about what's physically possible or not?

[Iwannaplato]

Sure, but above you agreed animals have free will.

Kind of, but not really.

Right, with no explanation of why you said it was there before and now take it back. No explanation why your argument about why humans have it doesn't work for animals - iow what I wrote about. So, yet another thing I should chase you around to explain.

OK, let me see if I understand this. You believe in free will yet somehow I imposed limits on you by asking you a question?
Why not just answer the question and stop grandstanding. Oh, you imposed limits on me....goes away without answering the question.

Because your limits are not my limits, and my limits are not your limits.

That's not a response. YOu accused me of imposing limits on you by asking a question.
What kind of free will advocate/example are you if you experience being asked a question is imposing limits on you?

I don't want you to misunderstand this difference. And until you do show me you do understand it, I can't let you put your limitations upon me, as a premise, and then expect from me "the impossible".

1) you already accused me of imposing limits on you
2) you sure have a lot of ways of not answering questions.

Great, but the link was about soaring. You could have answered, but again you didn't.

EDIT: now I looked at the link. Could you explain the impossible that you've done? I read the post. Do you mean speculating about physics?

It's not speculation if it's true.

What do you believe you know about what's physically possible or not?

I really don't know what's physically possibly or not. My intuition tells me that somethign along the lines of Rupert Sheldrake's ideas about there not being natural laws, but habits, and habits can change or be broken. I can't prove that, but that tends to be where my belief around the possible is.

Also, speculation can be true. Do you have some way to verify it or is it something that most of us should treat as speculation until there is some confirmation?

What I am noticing is a pattern of excuses for not responding or that you simply don't respond.

It comes off like you don't know the answers or can give examples for what you write.

And the whole you imposed limits on me with that question, that is just victim mentality.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, seems like you're not really prepared for this conversation. That's alright.

OH RLY?

How so?

I get exactly the same impression. YOu don't answer a lot of questions. You make assertions. You reassert them. You give excuses for not explaining and not responding. You even present someone asking you a questions as imposing limits on you.

That all strikes me as someone not prepared to talk to other adults in a philosophy forum or in any discussion forum.

YOu clearly could run a blog. Tell people what you think is true. That you could do.

But the skill set involved in discussing ideas and perhaps a think enough skin to deal with questions...those seem missing.

[Wizard22]

Right, with no explanation of why you said it was there before and now take it back. No explanation why your argument about why humans have it doesn't work for animals - iow what I wrote about. So, yet another thing I should chase you around to explain.

Don't blame me for not following the conversation. I've already stated my position on free-will in humans versus animals. In order to understand why humans have free-will, but animals do not, first you need to understand what a free-will is.

You don't seem to know what free-will is. So it won't make sense to you if I say that animals have it or not, when you don't believe humans have it or not.

That's not a response. YOu accused me of imposing limits on you by asking a question.
What kind of free will advocate/example are you if you experience being asked a question is imposing limits on you?

Because you are unaware of what you are presuming by your premises.

According to your logic, I need to live "a good life" or a "fantastic" life, in order to have free-will.

I really don't know what's physically possibly or not. My intuition tells me that somethign along the lines of Rupert Sheldrake's ideas about there not being natural laws, but habits, and habits can change or be broken. I can't prove that, but that tends to be where my belief around the possible is.

Also, speculation can be true. Do you have some way to verify it or is it something that most of us should treat as speculation until there is some confirmation?

What I am noticing is a pattern of excuses for not responding or that you simply don't respond.

It comes off like you don't know the answers or can give examples for what you write.

And the whole you imposed limits on me with that question, that is just victim mentality.

Incorrect, I'm treading lightly about your subconscious biases about free-will and what's physically possible, before you jump to conclusions about what I've already said.

Free-will is a sensitive matter. It doesn't matter how high I "soar" if you don't believe it's possible in the first place...right?!

[Wizard22]

I get exactly the same impression. YOu don't answer a lot of questions. You make assertions. You reassert them. You give excuses for not explaining and not responding. You even present someone asking you a questions as imposing limits on you.

That all strikes me as someone not prepared to talk to other adults in a philosophy forum or in any discussion forum.

YOu clearly could run a blog. Tell people what you think is true. That you could do.

But the skill set involved in discussing ideas and perhaps a think enough skin to deal with questions...those seem missing.

You and FJ are just impatient.

I intend you to convince you of Free-Will. Since you are particularly resistant, more so than FJ or harbal or belinda or any other Determinist, then that signals to me that you have a convictions holding you back. I didn't say this would be easy or quick, quite the contrary. You demand that I "soar", but we haven't even come to agreement on the simpler points, yet.

[Wizard22]

Is that it, that one has a rich fantasy life?

Lay out your answer.

Determinists it seems to you cannot soar merely because they are determinists. What is it you've done that you think determinists don't do that shows your soaring?

Is the answer that you think you are free?

So far, this is the crux of the arguments.

"That one has a rich fantasy life?" ~ these are your words, not mine. If this your Requirement to have a free-will, then so be it. Is that your final answer? That a rich fantasy life, is evidence or proof of a free-will? Because if one's will was free, then this would be its realization and conclusion? I'm not saying your argument is bad or false. Maybe you're right. Maybe the Examined Life, is worth living. But that's not how other Determinists define it.

Determinists determine freedom and free-will by "lack of constraint". This is only partially correct. Since, according to popeye, that life is "forever an endless reaction to what precedes it", then there can never be a complete lack of restraint as Time-itself, is an inescapable constraint. You haven't told or demonstrated your beliefs about this, as of yet.

But the positive view of freedom, what one is 'free' to do, you did make a claim about it as a "rich fantasy life".


I don't know what you mean, correct? I don't know how you, subjectively define a "rich fantasy life". To you, that can mean something completely different to me, and to the next guy, and to the next guy. Because how anybody imagines their "rich fantasy life", is according to vastly different values, premises, experiences, and ideals.


I'll proceed further here and say, to respond to your logic thus far, is that 'free-will' means that nobody can ever 'expect' the rich fantasy life in a way that suits, compliments, or fulfills your predictions. Because the quantifier of 'Free', does not allow that.

In other words, what a person believes is their "rich fantasy life" maybe a Hell. And the unexpected route they never considered, turns out to be much more meaningful, significant, and valuable.

[Flannel Jesus]

Is that it, that one has a rich fantasy life?

Lay out your answer.

Determinists it seems to you cannot soar merely because they are determinists. What is it you've done that you think determinists don't do that shows your soaring?

Is the answer that you think you are free?

So far, this is the crux of the arguments.

"That one has a rich fantasy life?" ~ these are your words, not mine. If this your Requirement to have a free-will, then so be it.

So you can't tell the difference between a person asking a question about someone else's beliefs, and someone making a claim about their own beliefs. Interesting. And not the first time you've had this confusion.

[Iwannaplato]

Determinists determine freedom and free-will by "lack of constraint". This is only partially correct. Since, according to popeye, that life is "forever an endless reaction to what precedes it", then there can never be a complete lack of restraint as Time-itself, is an inescapable constraint. You haven't told or demonstrated your beliefs about this, as of yet.

And now you aim vague assertions about other people's posts.

But the positive view of freedom, what one is 'free' to do, you did make a claim about it as a "rich fantasy life".

Nope. I never asserted that. I was referring to what YOU produced, after many requests, as examples of how you soar and do the impossible.

You made presented some vague ideas in the OP You made assertions about freedom to do the impossible later. Soaring, doing the impossible.
But so far the only examples of soaring and doing the impossible seem to be thinking something in prison and speculating about astronomy and physics 14 years ago.

I am still trying to understand what this soaring is you do that it seems you think determinists cannot do.