Freeing of the Will

[henry quirk]

I've only seen about two people saying something like this. Who do you think is agreeing with this?

Not my job to out them. I tell you this, though: right off the top of my head I can name six posters, including BM and the poster I mentioned.

Isn't BM the one you mentioned? Or does BM stand for Belinda mama?

Big Mike, and he and the poster who is angry with the raper are two different guys.

[Flannel Jesus]

Not my job to out them. I tell you this, though: right off the top of my head I can name six posters, including BM and the poster I mentioned.

Isn't BM the one you mentioned? Or does BM stand for Belinda mama?

Big Mike, and he and the poster who is angry with the raper are two different guys.

I have no idea who the second guy you're referring to is

[henry quirk]

Me, I just think they've been hoodwinked: sometimes by others, sometimes by themselves.

That's definitely part of it.

The smarter kids figure it out early in life though. It takes a type of mental discipline to maintain logical rigor. There is a strong compulsion in people to be selective when it comes to blame, fault, and consequences. The car accident with two parties blaming each other, is one of the better examples where the Determinists and Compatibilists can't weasel their way out to blaming 'Nature'. They know, full well, that humans need to blame someone, or something. And, from personal experience, they likely know this feeling of pressure somewhere in life, when real-world consequences are on the line.

Free-Will means somebody needs to own up to the blame, whether accusing others, or being accused.

I think understanding one is a free will is default. One has to be indoctrinated or hoodwinked into believin' otherwise. Part & parcel to knowing one is a free will is knowing you are yours, that your life, liberty, and property are yours and no one else's. What isn't default is the idea the other guy is a free will with a natural claim to his life, liberty and property. That has to be taught or recognized. Lots of folks aren't taught this and lots of folks don't have the wherewithal to figure it out. But everyone, and I mean everyone, starts off knowing himself as a free will (though no one thinks hey, I'm a free will!) and that he is his own and no one else's.

My point is: as with understanding he has a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, an individual doesn't have to work on bein' or understanding he's a free will. It part of the personhood package. No, to deny free will (that one has it or is one) that requires work.

[henry quirk]

Isn't BM the one you mentioned? Or does BM stand for Belinda mama?

Big Mike, and he and the poster who is angry with the raper are two different guys.

I have no idea who the second guy you're referring to is

Cuz I didn't name him...

if the will behind the action is not free, there is no moral responsibility...

-Imp

Exactly right. Any number of posters -- the absent Big Mike comes to mind -- make a lotta noise about how a belief in free will leads to atrocity (interesting how holding one's self and others as responsible for acts committed and the consequences of those acts is viewed as a bad thing). And yet every last one of these anti-free willists lives as though free will were true and moral responsibility applicable. Hell, in this very forum we have a poster -- a anti-moral realist, anti-free willist -- who admits to feeling anger toward the raper of his friend. But, how can this be, I asked? The raper, according to folks like the poster, simply did what was necessary he do (he had no choice in the matter) so he is not, cannot possibly be, responsible. And still the poster does hold the raper responsble (he is, however, uncharacteristically silent about why he does so).

These anti-free willists and anti-moral realists (determinists and materialists, all) talk the talk but cannot walk the walk.

[Advocate]

We may feel free to the extent we are ignorant of causality and in no other sense.

[Wizard22]

We may feel free to the extent we are ignorant of causality and in no other sense.

Why is freedom to you, contingent upon understanding of causality?

Animals make 'free' choices everyday without understanding causality. A predator chasing a prey, the prey animal doesn't need to understand the cause of its fear, in order to make decisions. It probably doesn't think of causes much at all.

[Wizard22]

I think understanding one is a free will is default. One has to be indoctrinated or hoodwinked into believin' otherwise. Part & parcel to knowing one is a free will is knowing you are yours, that your life, liberty, and property are yours and no one else's. What isn't default is the idea the other guy is a free will with a natural claim to his life, liberty and property. That has to be taught or recognized. Lots of folks aren't taught this and lots of folks don't have the wherewithal to figure it out. But everyone, and I mean everyone, starts off knowing himself as a free will (though no one thinks hey, I'm a free will!) and that he is his own and no one else's.

My point is: as with understanding he has a natural right to his life, liberty, and property, an individual doesn't have to work on bein' or understanding he's a free will. It part of the personhood package. No, to deny free will (that one has it or is one) that requires work.

I used to believe that but my faith in humanity has wavered this recent decade.

Western Civilization is premised on free-will and self-ownership of individuals, but not so much other societies and cultures, like China for example. In the Far East, and in pockets of the world, human life is cheap and treated cheaply. Poor people across the world don't believe in "self"-ownership, because they don't necessarily have the faith, trust, hope, and confidence in themselves that Westerners enjoy. This is something I agree with the Marxists about. The Marxists claim that Westerners are 'privileged' and this is a huge part of that privilege, having a free-will, being independent and capable of individuality.

It's true that there are always basic levels of Autonomy on the physical level. Nobody likes being pinned-down, and forcibly injected with Bill Gates World Health Organization magic juice. Humans don't like being forcibly sterilized or mutilated. Again, much of this does happen in the third world and second world. Genital mutilation is being normalized in the "first world" even now. Is that a "Choice"? Is suicide a "Choice"? There's definitely a lot of evil afoot in these areas.

The thing is, there is free-will, but there are many who are against it and wish to deprive it from others. Like you stated, this is a pivotal part of the equation.

Free-Will means that there is a competition in life. Yes you have free-will, but others also have a free-will that can 'choose' to deprive you of yours.



It's too bad that Flannel_Jesus, Iwannaplato, Harbal, and the others can't won't or don't have the ability to dig into these topics and conversations.

Philosophy is made lesser for this cowardice in the face of these challenges in life.

[Wizard22]

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

Lay out your answer.

Artificial Intelligence may provide some answers to humanity regarding free-will.

The best Chess AI programs can play at levels far beyond Magnus Carlsen and the best of the best individual chess players have to offer. If you are skilled at chess, watching AI is similar to a low IQ thinker observing a high IQ thinker. The AI program will make moves that seem unreal or impossible. They don't make sense. Because of the level of computational depth they have, chess AI programs can find flaws above the vision of the best of humanity. This applies to AI software and gaming programs as well. AI, when applied to human problems, provides unique results that are completely unexpected by human minds.

So free-will needs to consider this. How much of free-will a consideration of IQ...and Expectations. The latter part is something that can be analyzed. Humans have a range of Expectations about physics & reality. These are Conscious, Subconscious, and Unconscious. This means that any given person, any human individual, has biases and values 'hidden' underneath their psyche, that they aren't aware of. Humans generally are not cognizant of 'base' moral values.

Because of this lack of self-consciousness and self-knowledge, humanity tends to repeat mistakes based on these hidden biases.

AI does not, because AI is usually programmed 'without' such bias.

[Dontaskme]

There is very little tolerance for radical rejection of societal norms. Eventually it leads to criminalization or outright repulsion from society. Or worse, animosity and death.

For example, imagine you are born into a cult of Jehova Witnesses. Or an Amish community. Or fundamentalist Jewish Zionists in Israel. In any case, you would very much be held accountable to their moral system, their ethics, their religious beliefs. And if you strayed from...belief in God, then you would face a long list of social repercussions. You would not be free to question certain premises about reality. Because what is real, is also relative to a society, community, cult, culture, etc.

So basically, where there are human social 'belief' structures, put in place by human 'thought' processes ( mental activity ) then there obviously isn't going to be much room for there to be a personal free thinking individual who has their own will to use it and do what they will to want, rather they would essentially be forced to adhere to the societal cults they were born into. They would have to follow their leaders way of relating to the world, and how they have approved and deemed it an appropriate way to be, according to their cultural beliefs. So there would not really be anything one could do about that situation, especially since no one who is ever born has any free choice or will to ever predetermine what mental state of affairs, or place, or what parents they are going to be born to.

In reality, far removed away from the realm of human 'thought' (aka, this apparent empty awareness aware it is aware, as and through the process of being identified with 'thought' in this conception )

Behind the apparent appearance of there being a ''thought realm made of mind'' there is also the real world existing as a non-conceptual unknowing mystery. So any notion there is a 'personal free will' is just another illusion of the mind/thought realm.
In reality, there is here, only this absolute unknowing reality, this whole unconditional totality, free of any restriction, limit or border. In reality, there is no such thing as a 'separate individual' who has a free will, except as an artificially contrived belief.

Rather, the absolute totality is this immediate unconditional freedom to be in every moment, where everything is being done by absolute totality itself. In other words, the whole entire ocean of absolute totality is the only one thing that is doing life, in the same context only the whole ocean is waving the apparent separate waves. The waves are never waving the whole ocean, because the apparent separation of wave and ocean will always be illusory..

Right?

[FlashDangerpants]

Sort of weird that this enters into this conversation via Henry, but...

This seems relevant...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

In that video ... Feynman discusses two theories have all consequences the same, and because the consequences are the same there is no means to differentiate them, ergo no reason to suppose one has more explanatory capability than the other.

So... we have one universe that we inhabit, and each unique event occurs once and once only. But we have two competing theories about how certain among those events come to pass. Both explain the world exactly as it is, because the world we see around us is the only available one. Only VA lives in a hypothetical world where the moon may not be real, everyone else is in here with you.

This means that if you interpret the other guy's theory as having some outcome that is not how we actually inhabit the world, you have misrepresented him. And that cannot be, because you wrote this.

Be obsessive about quoting yourself, through the quote function or thru cut & paste, but rarely quote your opponent directly. Paraphrase him. And quote your paraphrasing while attributing it to your opponent. Subtly, you can recast his meaning, and then force him to defend sumthin' he never said.

So you would never stoop to saying Pete cannot account for moral judgments just because he has a theory that doesn't account for them in the same way yours does. That would be some dirt bag shit you were doing if you did that. Especially if you tried to spice up the vulgarity of your position by using a cruel taunt about rape.



As a side note, that Feynman argument kind of demonstrates why free will is a pointless question that people should just move on from. Along with the entire realism/antirealism debate which is just empty calories for similar reasons.

[Advocate]

[quote=Wizard22 post_id=640105 time=1683442546 user_id=22733]
[quote=Advocate post_id=640092 time=1683435581 user_id=15238]
We may feel free to the extent we are ignorant of causality and in no other sense.
[/quote]
Why is freedom to you, contingent upon understanding of causality?

Animals make 'free' choices everyday without understanding causality. A predator chasing a prey, the prey animal doesn't need to understand the cause of its fear, in order to make decisions. It probably doesn't think of causes much at all.
[/quote]

You inverted my contention. That they do Not understand causality makes them "free".

[Flannel Jesus]

Why can't you quote stuff normally?

[henry quirk]

Poor people across the world don't believe in "self"-ownership

I disagree. Each of them knows he's his own. Unfortunately they live in slaver states. The boot is on their faces. They're caught in, what they've been taught are, hopeless circumstances. They've been ground down and hoodwinked. So, it's not that these folks don't believe themselves to be free wills with natural rights (though, no doubt, some have been ground down so much they actually do believe themselves to be just meat machines). What they've been taught is it's wrong to be a free will, to claim yourself, and you'll be punished if you do.

[Wizard22]

I disagree. Each of them knows he's his own. Unfortunately they live in slaver states. The boot is on their faces. They're caught in, what they've been taught are, hopeless circumstances. They've been ground down and hoodwinked. So, it's not that these folks don't believe themselves to be free wills with natural rights (though, no doubt, some have been ground down so much they actually do believe themselves to be just meat machines). What they've been taught is it's wrong to be a free will, to claim yourself, and you'll be punished if you do.

USA has a major mass immigration problem of the 2nd and 3rd world flooding into the Southern US border. These people want to be 'free', to become free, by what America has to offer and represents. America, hypothetically, should be the nation of 'free-will'. Westerners should uphold and exalt this value. But do they? Look on this forum as an example. Most here are cynical and dismissive of the notion. We see this in the 'Determinists', their positions, and their attitudes. They cast free-will as a Negative, and not as a Value.

This was not the case, a short time ago, before 2000-2012.

Before 2000, Americans still upheld "Classical Liberal" values, the Rights of Men, and the Bill of Rights as means to endow Americans with Freedom. This Freedom was Freedom (to pursue Happiness) and (from Tyranny of the Government).

Now in 2023, everything has changed. Westerners no longer believe in Freedom, reject Free-Will, and instead, want to impose their 'Democrat-Liberal-Leftist-Marxist' worldview onto everybody else by force.


Immigrants are still motivated by the wealth and prosperity USA offers, hence the mass immigration. But even this is drying-up rapidly as exponential inflation and devaluation of the US Dollar (as world exchange currency) occurs.

The American Dream is evaporating. This is reflected by the cynical, skeptical, nihilistic arguments against free-will found on this forum, in these threads, and in the minds of these philosophy enthusiasts.

I don't say any of this with Pessimism. You and I both recognize the importance and value of Free-Will. But there is a distinction of context, of environment, culture, social, class, and institutions. If Marxists destroy the United States, where then will there be a country representing Freedom, Classical Liberal Values, and Free-Will on Earth?

Or will Tyranny and Totalitarianism rule over every square inch of this planet?

[Wizard22]

So basically, where there are human social 'belief' structures, put in place by human 'thought' processes ( mental activity ) then there obviously isn't going to be much room for there to be a personal free thinking individual who has their own will to use it and do what they will to want, rather they would essentially be forced to adhere to the societal cults they were born into. They would have to follow their leaders way of relating to the world, and how they have approved and deemed it an appropriate way to be, according to their cultural beliefs. So there would not really be anything one could do about that situation, especially since no one who is ever born has any free choice or will to ever predetermine what mental state of affairs, or place, or what parents they are going to be born to.

In reality, far removed away from the realm of human 'thought' (aka, this apparent empty awareness aware it is aware, as and through the process of being identified with 'thought' in this conception )

Behind the apparent appearance of there being a ''thought realm made of mind'' there is also the real world existing as a non-conceptual unknowing mystery. So any notion there is a 'personal free will' is just another illusion of the mind/thought realm.
In reality, there is here, only this absolute unknowing reality, this whole unconditional totality, free of any restriction, limit or border. In reality, there is no such thing as a 'separate individual' who has a free will, except as an artificially contrived belief.

Rather, the absolute totality is this immediate unconditional freedom to be in every moment, where everything is being done by absolute totality itself. In other words, the whole entire ocean of absolute totality is the only one thing that is doing life, in the same context only the whole ocean is waving the apparent separate waves. The waves are never waving the whole ocean, because the apparent separation of wave and ocean will always be illusory..

Right?

I disagree with the bolded sections.

What Mankind, and Mammals tend to do, is resist and rebel against convention and the rule of their elders. This is linked directly with Male instincts. Males in particular have a tendency to reject, rebel, resist, any and all institutions, customs, ethics, etc. as restrictions placed upon them. Because of this resistance and innate rebellion, Males do sometimes make strides of 'progress' by Exile from their society, or Usurping it.

Males who survive on their own, can live in the wild of Nature on their own, are considered Independent and Individual. They are not dependent upon Society to survive. Most humans and mammals are, however, dependent on societies. The weak, the infirm, females in general, etc. these are types who are far less rebellious and significant in their acquisitions toward independence. Thus the majority work 'within' the system, furthering it, legitimizing it, justifying it, to gain what little they can from Traditional methods.

This leads to various manners of control over the Masses. People will break their backs for bread crumbs. People will be slaves to society, willingly. Because the prospect of Exile is a fear worse than death for most. Humans want to play within the System, rather than without.

My counter-point is that you need a great resolve and ability, to resist and reject Society from within, and/or to survive from without.