Page 68 of 422
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:27 pm
by bobmax
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:54 pm
I think she may not be conceptualising freedom in a similar way to you. But that's only a guess. When you get to very abstract concepts like that, it's more than likely that you two are using the same word to refer to extremely different ideas.
It looks to me like Belinda is saying human minds are the result of the behaviour of human brains, and human brains are made of matter that is fundamentally entirely the same as other matter in the universe, and invariably obeys the same laws.
Often people contrast free will with determinism, as if a lack of determinism (and thus imo a presence of randomness) grants a person more freedom somehow. But many people find it useful to flip that idea on its head, and see randomness as the true prison, and determinism the source of freedom. I can go into more detail if you like, but that's the sort of path I think Belinda is implying.
I am happy to talk about it with you.
I am convinced that free will does not exist.
The main reason for my belief is ethics.
However, there are other considerations that lead to the conclusion that free will is an illusion.
Among these is the fact that everything that happens is either necessary or accidental.
I consider the term "determined" misleading because it is opposed to the indeterminate. I therefore prefer to use the word "necessity".
So an event is either necessary or it is random.
Free will can therefore only be a manifestation of chance.
Except... randomness doesn't exist.
If it existed, its appearance would consist in the eruption of Chaos into the Cosmos.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:33 pm
by bobmax
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:42 pm
Bobmax, this conversation is within the general discussion of Free Will or Determinism. There is no animal except man that is credited with originating events.
So I understood right, for you man is substantially different from any other animal.
While for me it is not like that at all. Because the differences in the world are only quantitative, never qualitative.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:19 am
by bobmax
The truly free man is the one who recognizes the non-existence of free will.
What is horror for the unfree man is joy for the truly free man.
Indeed, he is aware that he is the only begotten son.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:41 am
by BigMike
bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:19 am
The truly free man is the one who recognizes the non-existence of free will.
What is horror for the unfree man is joy for the truly free man.
Indeed, he is aware that he is the only begotten son.
However, it depends on your definition of "
truly free man". If you lack free will,
you cannot choose your actions. Therefore, concepts such as "free speech" are meaningless. The same holds true for religious freedom, assembly freedom, voting freedom, etc.
Are you referring to a man who is not handcuffed or chained when you say "truly free man"?
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:47 am
by Belinda
bobmax wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:33 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 7:42 pm
Bobmax, this conversation is within the general discussion of Free Will or Determinism. There is no animal except man that is credited with originating events.
So I understood right, for you man is substantially different from any other animal.
While for me it is not like that at all. Because the differences in the world are only quantitative, never qualitative.
No. Man is different in kind from any other animal
only on condition there is absolute Free Will
Absolute Free Will does not exist.
Man is not different in kind from other animals.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:49 am
by phyllo
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:41 am
bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:19 am
The truly free man is the one who recognizes the non-existence of free will.
What is horror for the unfree man is joy for the truly free man.
Indeed, he is aware that he is the only begotten son.
However, it depends on your definition of "
truly free man". If you lack free will,
you cannot choose your actions.
Then who or what is doing the choosing?
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:53 am
by Belinda
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:49 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:41 am
bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:19 am
The truly free man is the one who recognizes the non-existence of free will.
What is horror for the unfree man is joy for the truly free man.
Indeed, he is aware that he is the only begotten son.
However, it depends on your definition of "
truly free man". If you lack free will,
you cannot choose your actions.
Then who or what is doing the choosing?
Does a sunflower choose to turn its face to the sun?
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:57 am
by BigMike
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:49 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:41 am
bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:19 am
The truly free man is the one who recognizes the non-existence of free will.
What is horror for the unfree man is joy for the truly free man.
Indeed, he is aware that he is the only begotten son.
However, it depends on your definition of "
truly free man". If you lack free will,
you cannot choose your actions.
Then who or what is doing the choosing?
The flow of electricity in you brain, through your neuronal network, obviously.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:02 am
by phyllo
Inanimate objects don't choose anything.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:21 am
by phyllo
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:53 am
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:49 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:41 am
However, it depends on your definition of "
truly free man". If you lack free will,
you cannot choose your actions.
Then who or what is doing the choosing?
Does a sunflower choose to turn its face to the sun?
Generally, the ability to choose is only attributed to humans and animals. But you do describe what seems to be an intentional,coordinated activity on the part of the sunflower. So I think it can be considered choosing in my opinion.
Plants are quite remarkable and surprising when you research them.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:03 pm
by Belinda
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:02 am
Inanimate objects don't choose anything.
Sunflowers are not inanimate! But they don't reason because reasoning needs the ability to abstract general ideas from particulars, and this in turn needs symbolic language.
Animals that use tools (e.g.some apes , and crows) can generalise the concept of tools from bits of wood and a problem to be solved. However there's a huge difference of degree between what these intelligent animals do and what Einstein did.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:14 pm
by bobmax
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:41 am
bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:19 am
The truly free man is the one who recognizes the non-existence of free will.
What is horror for the unfree man is joy for the truly free man.
Indeed, he is aware that he is the only begotten son.
However, it depends on your definition of "
truly free man". If you lack free will,
you cannot choose your actions. Therefore, concepts such as "free speech" are meaningless. The same holds true for religious freedom, assembly freedom, voting freedom, etc.
Are you referring to a man who is not handcuffed or chained when you say "truly free man"?
Yes, he is not chained.
Because he died to himself.
When you become aware that there is no free will, compassion takes over.
And you are gone.
For the simple reason that you've never been there.
Everything flows as it always does, but it is as if you were at the origin of all things.
But it is not a state that can last.
Soon you return to being there, choosing this rather than that, forgetting the illusion of this freedom, and therefore the illusion of your own being there.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:30 pm
by bobmax
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:47 am
No. Man is different in kind from any other animal
only on condition there is absolute Free Will
Absolute Free Will does not exist.
Man is not different in kind from other animals.
Free will either is or isn't.
It may perhaps only minimally affect our choices.
But even if its role is marginal, it is or is not there.
What need is there to specify absolute?
Free will, if there is, is necessarily absolute, because it is free from any conditioning.
Regardless of its actual manifestation.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:32 pm
by bobmax
phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:49 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:41 am
bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:19 am
The truly free man is the one who recognizes the non-existence of free will.
What is horror for the unfree man is joy for the truly free man.
Indeed, he is aware that he is the only begotten son.
However, it depends on your definition of "
truly free man". If you lack free will,
you cannot choose your actions.
Then who or what is doing the choosing?
God.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:34 pm
by Belinda
bobmax wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:30 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 9:47 am
No. Man is different in kind from any other animal
only on condition there is absolute Free Will
Absolute Free Will does not exist.
Man is not different in kind from other animals.
Free will either is or isn't.
It may perhaps only minimally affect our choices.
But even if its role is marginal, it is or is not there.
What need is there to specify absolute?
Free will, if there is, is necessarily absolute, because it is free from any conditioning.
Regardless of its actual manifestation.
I'd rather not have to specify "absolute". However if you read these pages long enough you will find many contributors think Free Will is synonymous with the act of choosing.