compatibilism

[Atla]

Sure, and is this random or...what would lead you to pick option 235 over all the other billions or trillions of options?

Free will.

Could you define the will part of that phrase? Free will leads to the speciic choice you make....what does that mean?

It doesn't lead to a specific choice, it leads to any specific choice you want.

[Flannel Jesus]

If you can make any choice you want, why can't you choose to break the known deterministic laws of physics?

I'm glad I clarified before that I do not believe most libertarians believe that, nor is that what I mean.

So, if what you said there was not what you, actually, meant, then what did you, actually, mean, exactly.

Although, and by the way, I have already written and expressed what you, actually, meant, for you.

You are too stupid for this my brother. You don't have enough reading comprehension for me to even bother. "if what you said there was not what you, actually, meant" if you had any reading comprehension, you'd know that what HE said is not what I mean, not what I said.

You lack every quality i look for in a conversation partner, so we don't talk.

[Atla]

Now could I, as this current human, make full use of free will, or could I only make choices that I can at least somewhat imagine? I don't know, maybe it's the latter, maybe not.

[Age]

If you can make any choice you want, why can't you choose to break the known deterministic laws of physics?

I'm glad I clarified before that I do not believe most libertarians believe that, nor is that what I mean.

Then, as I said, you're a determinist. There is no such thing as compatibilism.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The beliefs of these people are so blatantly obvious, and they are just as blatantly obvious as how and why these people here are as CLOSED as they are. "atla" provides here the very proof of why these people took so, so very long to 'find' and 'see' what the actual Truth of things is, exactly.

This one also believes, absolutely, that there are things like "libertarians", "dertminists", and, now, even "compatabilitsts", right "atla"?

This one also actually believes that there is absolutely no way possible in the whole of the Universe that 'free will' and 'determinism' could not be compatible and both co-exist together, at all.

Which, again, is why they were so very, very slow back then, when this was being written.

[Age]

Of course. You can't be a libertarian if you can't defy gravity.

Okay

They want to have their cake and eat it too, or are just not very bright. It's wishful thinking.

So, once more, if one does not agree with and accept "atla's" own views and beliefs, then they are 'not very bright', as "atla" puts it.

But even if we just insert a "little" free will into the human, we are already bypassing some of the deterministic brain/mind mechanisms that technically have a small but non-zero gravitational field.

LOL

Here 'we' have another prime example of one just looking for, and using, any combination of words, which it hopes will fit in with and support their 'currently' held onto belief.

Now, obviously, if this one was questioned and challenged over its choice of words here, then it would say some thing like, 'Fuck off'.

Which, really, shows just how Truly insecure and unable they were to back up and support their beliefs and claims, here.

[Age]

It's telling btw that 60% of professional philosophers subscribe to compatibilism, even though we can see at a glance that it's breaking the basic laws of thought, so it's a position that doesn't even exist. It says that P and not-P can be true at the same time.

This is what happens when one believes is absolutely true and right, they will, literally, grab onto and use any combination of words, in 'the hope' that those words will somehow back up and support their belief and claim.

But, any sort of actual challenging and questioning of them reveals just how much, or how little, they, really, knew.

And that's why even philosophy forums are better than professional philosophy.

LOL

So, because those with the same beliefs and views as "atla" has, and strongly holds on and maintains, is the reason why 'philosophy forums' are better than 'professional philosophy'.

Some of these people, like "atla", when this was being written, really did believe, absolutely, that they had and knew the actual irrefutable truth. YET, when they are questioned and/or challenged, they would constantly 'fall to pieces', and literally I will add. As this one has shown and proved many times over, already.

[Atla]

...

You've no idea what you're talking about, and never will have. Now fuck off

[Age]

I can't say it doesn't make sense, but the laws of physics is a kind of third person perspective. Let's come from a first person perspective: I am free to choose to do anything. What leads me to whatever choice I make within mass of options? Is it causeless? In what sense is it a choice? or my choice? If I decide, hey, I go out dancing, didn't my desire lead to that choice? If I decide not to do what I desired, isn't that also a desire?
Forget atoms and chemical reactions. Let's pretend were' pre-Democritus. What leads to the choice?

I guess in this view, the choice simply comes from a will that exists outside the causality of the physical universe.

Part of the reason I moved away from physics is that I was trying to see what would motivate the choices of this will.

Of 'what will'?

What is this 'will', exactly, which you speak of and mention here?

Does it have no motivations (desires, goals, information.....)?

What is the 'it' here, exactly, which you are asking if 'it' does have no motivation?

If it ihas these things, aren't they causing the choice?

If the word 'it' is referring to 'will', then what is 'will', exactly? If you did not answer, and clarify, when I asked you to clarify before.

If they aren't causing the choice,

Who and/or what is 'they', now, exactly?

then it seems to me the will isn't reallly choosing.

you speak as though 'will', itself, is like a human being, which is actually what is able to 'choose', or to 'make choices'.

It's like a gap in causation and anything can happen.

What is like a gap in causation?

What is the 'it' word here referring to, exactly?

It happens.

What happens, exactly?

I am not sure that's a kind of freedom.

What is 'that', exactly, which you are, still, not sure if 'it' is a kind of freedom?

I don't know how the term 'free will' applies.

This is blatantly obvious.

And, the reason why you are completely and utterly lost and confused here, still.

If desires, goals, information lead to the choice, then the choice is determined - doesn't matter what laws are or aren't involved.

'The choice', itself, is better aligned with being 'pre-determined'. But, 'the choice' was/is, still, freely made. Therefore, 'free will', still, exists combined with 'determinism'. Both co-exist together. Which is how and why 'the life' that I am creating here, for all, is coming to fruition. And, you people are helping me, tremendously, here.

The above could be taken as an argument against libertarian free will, but here I mean it as saying that I can't conceive of it (it can't be conceived of).

The amount of times you use words like 'it' and 'that', but what they are in relation to, exactly, is nearly always only implied while not being directly referred to, exactly.

By the way, you might have presented an unsound and/or valid argument against some made up so-called "libertarian free will", but who cares.

Again, only sound and valid arguments are worthy of being repeated.

Of course someone might say, simply saying that the will chooses outside the the causality of the physical universe is conceiving of it.

But, does, or would, any human being say that 'will', itself, (whatever 'will' is), 'chooses outside the causality of the physical Universe'?

If yes, then how are they defining the word 'will' here, exactly?

So, I suppose we could mull over what conceving means.

I suggest that you define what 'will' here means, exactly, first.

But would you ever even clarify things like this?

But in that conception I have no idea what 'will' means, and then also as long as it is caused, determined, to me I still don't have a conception of libertarian free will, since it still seems like any will making a choice is part of an inevitable chains of causes, if internal and motivation from within.

This is not surprising, at all.

If motivations, desires, goals and knowledge do not lead to my choosing amongst every option, I don't see it as either freedom or something to do with will. Just a gap in causation and randomness.

Okay.

But, what you say here does not, really, fit in with what is, actually, irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct here.

[Age]

I guess in this view, the choice simply comes from a will that exists outside the causality of the physical universe.

Part of the reason I moved away from physics is that I was trying to see what would motivate the choices of this will. Does it have no motivations (desires, goals, information.....)? If it ihas these things, aren't they causing the choice? If they aren't causing the choice, then it seems to me the will isn't reallly choosing. It's like a gap in causation and anything can happen. It happens. I am not sure that's a kind of freedom. I don't know how the term 'free will' applies. If desires, goals, information lead to the choice, then the choice is determined - doesn't matter what laws are or aren't involved.

The above could be taken as an argument against libertarian free will, but here I mean it as saying that I can't conceive of it (it can't be conceived of). Of course someone might say, simply saying that the will chooses outside the the causality of the physical universe is conceiving of it. So, I suppose we could mull over what conceving means. But in that conception I have no idea what 'will' means, and then also as long as it is caused, determined, to me I still don't have a conception of libertarian free will, since it still seems like any will making a choice is part of an inevitable chains of causes, if internal and motivation from within.

Naturally, free will entails a kind of causation/determination/determinism of its own, but here we are writing the rules of it. The point is not to confuse it with the other kind of determinism, "the" determinism, where we aren't writing the rules.

LOL What rules do you believe that you are writing, here?

[Age]

Part of the reason I moved away from physics is that I was trying to see what would motivate the choices of this will. Does it have no motivations (desires, goals, information.....)? If it ihas these things, aren't they causing the choice? If they aren't causing the choice, then it seems to me the will isn't reallly choosing. It's like a gap in causation and anything can happen. It happens. I am not sure that's a kind of freedom. I don't know how the term 'free will' applies. If desires, goals, information lead to the choice, then the choice is determined - doesn't matter what laws are or aren't involved.

The above could be taken as an argument against libertarian free will, but here I mean it as saying that I can't conceive of it (it can't be conceived of). Of course someone might say, simply saying that the will chooses outside the the causality of the physical universe is conceiving of it. So, I suppose we could mull over what conceving means. But in that conception I have no idea what 'will' means, and then also as long as it is caused, determined, to me I still don't have a conception of libertarian free will, since it still seems like any will making a choice is part of an inevitable chains of causes, if internal and motivation from within.

Naturally, free will entails a kind of causation/determination/determinism of its own, but here we are writing the rules of it. The point is not to confuse it with the other kind of determinism, "the" determinism, where we aren't writing the rules.

To me determinism, is not taking a stand on substance - like say physicalism does - it is just saying that state A had to lead to state B. Generally determinists, think that state A includes causes that are both internal to people and external, however they conceive of causation and substance. But regardless they think that whatever happened after A had to be B.

It is this type of Truly confused talk, why these people took so long to come to learn, and understand, the actual Truth of things, here.

To me once the word will is involved, we are talking about someone being able to choose more or less as their own force.

If this is what you 'see', then okay.

But, this reveals, and explains, a lot here.

Most conceptions of free will, it seems to me, don't assume one can do anything.

How many 'conceptions' of 'free will' have you been made aware of?

And, what are some, if not all, of 'these conceptions' of 'free will', exactly?

Also, what do the words 'free will' mean, and refer to, exactly, and which fit in, perfectly, with all of the other words, and their definitions?

Conceptions of words, terms, or phrases that do not fit in perfectly with all other words, and all definitions, could just be removed, completely. Doing this will help in speeding up you people, also, coming to learn, and understand, what the actual Truth is here, in Life.

I can't eat the sun or walk through walls, but the libertarian free will person thinks that from the range of physically possible options, I can choose any one of them.

Are you able to present, or put forth, a so-called "libertarian free will person" who says or claims that they, or you, can eat the sun or walk through walls?

If no, then why mention some thing that may well not even exist?

I don't know what that 'I' is,

Obviously. That you do not know what the 'I' is, is very, very clear and evident.

either in the usual libertarian free will I usually encounter or in yours.

None of you here are, yet, able to answer the question, 'Who, nor what, am 'I', exactly?'

you human beings and posters here, in the days when this is being written, still, are some way of 'knowing' what 'the answer' is here, exactly.

I can conceive of a gap in causation, where anything can happen in the next moment. I can concieve of that. I just can't see where the will is.

Are you able to elaborate on and explain what you even mean by 'a gap in causation, where anything can happen in the next moment?

If yes, then will you do it?

If no, then why not?

Also, just because you can 'conceive' of some thing in absolutely no way means that what you can 'conceive' can actually happen, nor is even possible at all.

To me will includes the idea of me going for what I want, and thus what came before in me, led to my choice to jump to France, or order take out food or take a nap or walk through a wall.

To me, you appear to be very confused and bamboozled here.

That there is an internal causation.

Internal of who or what, exactly?

Also, what even does the 'will' word mean, or is referring to, to you, exactly?

Doesn't matter if this is within an idealism, physicalism, dualism.

Bring in more things, which you have not explained what they are, exactly, only shows and reveals why you are, actually, so lost and confused here.

Doesn't matter if the rules of physical matter or the realm of ideas or anything else can be ignored, there are no restraints. If my will or a will can choose then it is choose from its or my desires, goals, knowledge.

Now, 'this one' who does not even, yet, know what 'it' nor what the 'I' is, exactly, is talking about 'it' having 'a will', and/or 'a will' making its own choices.

If we say that I can do anything at all imaginable or merely that I am free within the range of options of physical matter or the rules of maya or whatever, doesn't matter.

Has absolutely any one in this forum ever made such a Truly ridiculous claim as this here?

If yes, then who, exactly?

But, if no, then why bring this up like it is some real thing?

If no one here is saying that we can do anything at all imaginable, then why say and claim, 'If we say that I can do anything at all imaginable'?

If no one is saying 'this', then why bring into the discussion here, 'If we say ... [this]'?

If a will is choosing

But, 'a will' is NOT choosing.

then it is choosing from that state that we usually think of as internal (in physicalist models) but it doesn't really matter where they are.

This is moot.

If state A, including them, leads to state B, then state B is determined as are all coming states.

All of this is based on 'if'. And, the 'if's' are not even actual ones here.

If it is not determined, I don't know what the word will means nor the free part.

you acknowledged earlier that you did not know what the 'will' means anyway.

I, it seems to me, don't 'have free will'.

you cannot even define what 'I', and 'free will', are, exactly, Accurately, nor Correctly.

So, until 'you' can answer, and clarify, exactly, who and what 'I' am, and what 'free will' is, exactly also, then I would suggest you find out, and know, first, before you start talking about these things, as you did not know what you are talking about.

In the next moment anything can happen and my desires, motivations, goals and knoweldge don't cause that. So I don't see where will comes it. Something random happens and state b is uncaused. Then there is a freedom involved, by the universe. Freedom in the sense that anything can happen. But it's not a freedom that any self has. The next moment can be anything. States happen, they are not chosen.

And, it is words like these here that proves, irrefutably, just how absolutely lost and confused these ones really were, back when this was being written.

[Age]

Naturally, free will entails a kind of causation/determination/determinism of its own, but here we are writing the rules of it. The point is not to confuse it with the other kind of determinism, "the" determinism, where we aren't writing the rules.

To me determinism, is not taking a stand on substance - like say physicalism does - it is just saying that state A had to lead to state B. Generally determinists, think that state A includes causes that are both internal to people and external, however they conceive of causation and substance. But regardless they think that whatever happened after A had to be B.

To me once the word will is involved, we are talking about someone being able to choose more or less as their own force. Most conceptions of free will, it seems to me, don't assume one can do anything. I can't eat the sun or walk through walls, but the libertarian free will person thinks that from the range of physically possible options, I can choose any one of them.

I don't know what that 'I' is, either in the usual libertarian free will I usually encounter or in yours.

I can conceive of a gap in causation, where anything can happen in the next moment. I can concieve of that. I just can't see where the will is. To me will includes the idea of me going for what I want, and thus what came before in me, led to my choice to jump to France, or order take out food or take a nap or walk through a wall. That there is an internal causation. Doesn't matter if this is within an idealism, physicalism, dualism. Doesn't matter if the rules of physical matter or the realm of ideas or anything else can be ignored, there are no restraints. If my will or a will can choose then it is choose from its or my desires, goals, knowledge. If we say that I can do anything at all imaginable or merely that I am free within the range of options of physical matter or the rules of maya or whatever, doesn't matter. If a will is choosing then it is choosing from that state that we usually think of as internal (in physicalist models) but it doesn't really matter where they are. If state A, including them, leads to state B, then state B is determined as are all coming states.

If it is not determined, I don't know what the word will means nor the free part. I, it seems to me, don't 'have free will'. In the next moment anything can happen and my desires, motivations, goals and knoweldge don't cause that. So I don't see where will comes it. Something random happens and state b is uncaused. Then there is a freedom involved, by the universe. Freedom in the sense that anything can happen. But it's not a freedom that any self has. The next moment can be anything. States happen, they are not chosen.

Sorry I just don't understand what you guys are saying. Let's forget this "range of physically possible options", I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.

"iwannaplato" has a habit of introducing things, which it never makes 'understandable', and which only confuses things more. it does this hoping that 'the other' will look more wrong, and it will look more right.

Either we have free will so we aren't constrained by a range in the physical universe, or we don't have free will and there is only one option.

LOL Why do you believe, absolutely, that you human beings cannot have 'free will' and still be constrained by a range in the physical Universe.

How do you even define the words 'free will', exactly?

You're saying in determinism state A had to lead to state B. But with free will you can continue with any state after state A, that's the will part.

Which shows and reveals how and why it does not, yet, know what it is talking about and claiming.

[Age]

Sorry I just don't understand what you guys are saying. Let's forget this "range of physically possible options", I've no idea what that's supposed to mean. Either we have free will so we aren't constrained by a range in the physical universe, or we don't have free will and there is only one option.

You're saying in determinism state A had to lead to state B. But with free will you can continue with any state after state A, that's the will part.

OK, so Atla, you have free will. You are not constrained by the laws of the universe.

But, none of you human beings have 'free will', and are not constrained by the laws of the Universe.

Instead, all of you human beings have 'free will', and are constrained by the laws of the Universe.

As can and will be proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct.

What leads to your next choice. And be specific. Like if this was the case, what would you do next and why?

But, this one could not be specific here, while being open and honest, because if it did, then it would just end up contradicting "itself", once again.

You choose to create money in your hands or fly or order a pizza. What leads to the next choice you make from all the possible choices?

is it random? If not, what leads to the option Atla chooses in the free will universe?

Once more, here is absolute proof that these people had the absolute Wrong conception of the words 'free will', and thus why they took so, so long to comprehend, learn, and understand things here.

[Age]

Sorry I just don't understand what you guys are saying. Let's forget this "range of physically possible options", I've no idea what that's supposed to mean. Either we have free will so we aren't constrained by a range in the physical universe, or we don't have free will and there is only one option.

You're saying in determinism state A had to lead to state B. But with free will you can continue with any state after state A, that's the will part.

OK, so Atla, you have free will. You are not constrained by the laws of the universe.
What leads to your next choice. And be specific. Like if this was the case, what would you do next and why?

You choose to create money in your hands or fly or order a pizza. What leads to the next choice you make from all the possible choices?

Umm.. it would be an idea stemming from my current self.

Just as I said and claimed earlier. That is; 'this one' will 'crumble' if, and when, it is questioned and/or challenged over its beliefs and claims here.

So, what is a 'self' "atla", and how, exactly, is 'that one' different from a 'current self', if it is?

[Age]

Naturally, free will entails a kind of causation/determination/determinism of its own, but here we are writing the rules of it. The point is not to confuse it with the other kind of determinism, "the" determinism, where we aren't writing the rules.

To me determinism, is not taking a stand on substance - like say physicalism does - it is just saying that state A had to lead to state B. Generally determinists, think that state A includes causes that are both internal to people and external, however they conceive of causation and substance. But regardless they think that whatever happened after A had to be B.

To me once the word will is involved, we are talking about someone being able to choose more or less as their own force. Most conceptions of free will, it seems to me, don't assume one can do anything. I can't eat the sun or walk through walls, but the libertarian free will person thinks that from the range of physically possible options, I can choose any one of them.

I don't know what that 'I' is, either in the usual libertarian free will I usually encounter or in yours.

I can conceive of a gap in causation, where anything can happen in the next moment. I can concieve of that. I just can't see where the will is. To me will includes the idea of me going for what I want, and thus what came before in me, led to my choice to jump to France, or order take out food or take a nap or walk through a wall. That there is an internal causation. Doesn't matter if this is within an idealism, physicalism, dualism. Doesn't matter if the rules of physical matter or the realm of ideas or anything else can be ignored, there are no restraints. If my will or a will can choose then it is choose from its or my desires, goals, knowledge. If we say that I can do anything at all imaginable or merely that I am free within the range of options of physical matter or the rules of maya or whatever, doesn't matter. If a will is choosing then it is choosing from that state that we usually think of as internal (in physicalist models) but it doesn't really matter where they are. If state A, including them, leads to state B, then state B is determined as are all coming states.

If it is not determined, I don't know what the word will means nor the free part. I, it seems to me, don't 'have free will'. In the next moment anything can happen and my desires, motivations, goals and knoweldge don't cause that. So I don't see where will comes it. Something random happens and state b is uncaused. Then there is a freedom involved, by the universe. Freedom in the sense that anything can happen. But it's not a freedom that any self has. The next moment can be anything. States happen, they are not chosen.

Oh wait wait wait.. "I", "I", "I", "my", "my will", is this about the "I", the Eastern ego? I'm a nondualist,

LOL
LOL
LOL "nondualist".

And, so 'the answer' to 'the question', 'Who am 'I'?' is, 'nondualist'. Well according to 'the one' here known as "atla" anyway.

so this non-issue doesn't even register with me anymore.

Which is, really, quite convenient, especially when you cannot counter what another says, or when you cannot back up and support your own claims, and beliefs.

I no longer have/"am" the kind of "I" that you guys have/"are".

So, what are the difference/s here, exactly?

Not that you are even able to answer, and clarify.

As you will, once again, prove me absolutely True, and Right, here.

[Age]

The issue with free will isn't really the "I", it's memory.

But, there is NO 'issue' at all with 'free will', itself.

Just because you human beings are not, yet, able to just define the two words, and agree upon and accept one definition never means that there is 'an issue' with those two words. The only 'issue' here is, and was, with you people here, back when this was being written.

Maybe we do have free will,

The reason why these people were, still, questioning whether they had 'free will', or not, was because they had not yet even defined those two words, in agreement and acceptance.

but simply never remember using it

LOL When you, also, realize what the words 'free will' are referring to, exactly, and which fit in, perfectly, with all the other words, and their definitions, then 'recognizing' and 'remembering' when you are using 'free will' is not 'an issue' at all.

because our will doesn't come with its own memory,

This here is another prime example of adding on layers, which only bamboozles and confuses things, and these people, here, before they just define previous words and come to an agreement, and an acceptance, of 'a definition'.

They kept on moving along, and adding more layers of confusion, before ever 'settling on' what the actual Truth is, first.

or just with a miniscule amount.

They have not, yet, even defined what the words 'free will' and 'will' are, and what they refer to, exactly, yet 'now' they are talking about 'these unknown things' having 'their own memory', or even 'having none'.

Again, layers and layers of conflation and confusion just keeps getting added (up) on.

Our will always finds itself in some new "body" that remembers its own deterministic world, but we don't remember our millions of chosen prior jumps between the different worlds/different versions of ourselves.

Now, if 'this one' was questioned and/or challenged over its claim here, then it would completely 'crumble', 'fall' and 'fail' before it could even begin to respond.