Philosophy Now Forum

MustaphaTheMond wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:33 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 11:28 pm if free will truly isn't then my stubborn belief in it is as determined as every-thing and -one

that is: if you're right, then I have no choice in the matter...I believe in free will (libertarian agent causation), believe I am a free will (a causal agent), and that's beyond my or your control

robotic you wrote your piece cuz that's simply how the causal chain unfolded

robotic me rejects your piece cuz that's simply how the causal chain unfolded

neither of us can take any credit or be burdened by any blame

'nuff said

Yes, whether you like it or not, your belief in free will is also determined.
And yes, that is how the causal chain unfolded.
Reductionism is true, whether we like it or not.
To argue against this simply because you don't like it is the "appeal to consequences fallacy".

Then it is determined free will exists.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 6:07 pm

MustaphaTheMond wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:33 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 11:28 pm if free will truly isn't then my stubborn belief in it is as determined as every-thing and -one

that is: if you're right, then I have no choice in the matter...I believe in free will (libertarian agent causation), believe I am a free will (a causal agent), and that's beyond my or your control

robotic you wrote your piece cuz that's simply how the causal chain unfolded

robotic me rejects your piece cuz that's simply how the causal chain unfolded

neither of us can take any credit or be burdened by any blame

'nuff said

Yes, whether you like it or not, your belief in free will is also determined.
And yes, that is how the causal chain unfolded.
Reductionism is true, whether we like it or not.
To argue against this simply because you don't like it is the "appeal to consequences fallacy".

Then it is determined free will exists.

The mond sez we're all toasters. I know I'm not, but I'm perfectly willin' to accept his self-definition: the mond is a toaster.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 6:07 pm

MustaphaTheMond wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 10:33 pm

Yes, whether you like it or not, your belief in free will is also determined.
And yes, that is how the causal chain unfolded.
Reductionism is true, whether we like it or not.
To argue against this simply because you don't like it is the "appeal to consequences fallacy".

Then it is determined free will exists.

The mond sez we're all toasters. I know I'm not, but I'm perfectly willin' to accept his self-definition: the mond is a toaster.

If all is determined then it is determined free will exists as a concept and as a concept exists as part of consciousness given consciousness is the act of establishing boundaries thus phenomena as composed of boundaries.

We observe the concept of free will thus it exists as a phenomenon, and it cannot be an illusion given not only do illusions requires a choice between true and false values but, as in all illusions, is built upon prior phenomenon which exist much in the same manner a unicorn exists as the mixing of the actualities of a horse and horn.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:16 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 6:07 pm

Then it is determined free will exists.

The mond sez we're all toasters. I know I'm not, but I'm perfectly willin' to accept his self-definition: the mond is a toaster.

If all is determined then it is determined free will exists as a concept and as a concept exists as part of consciousness given consciousness is the act of establishing boundaries thus phenomena as composed of boundaries.

Hey, I'm on your side, guy.

The mond is the toaster you need to convince

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:16 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:09 pm

The mond sez we're all toasters. I know I'm not, but I'm perfectly willin' to accept his self-definition: the mond is a toaster.

If all is determined then it is determined free will exists as a concept and as a concept exists as part of consciousness given consciousness is the act of establishing boundaries thus phenomena as composed of boundaries.

Hey, I'm on your side, guy.

The mond is the toaster you need to convince

The Mond is wrong.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:19 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:16 pm

If all is determined then it is determined free will exists as a concept and as a concept exists as part of consciousness given consciousness is the act of establishing boundaries thus phenomena as composed of boundaries.

Hey, I'm on your side, guy.

The mond is the toaster you need to convince

The Mond is wrong.

Of course he is.

I don't know if the topic creator is still paying attention, but re his blog entry that he linked to in the initial post of this thread, I was going to ask him just what empirical evidence he's referring to when he says, "Despite the fact that, every few years, new empirical evidence emerges against the very concept of a will that is 'free.'"

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:36 pm I don't know if the topic creator is still paying attention, but re his blog entry that he linked to in the initial post of this thread, I was going to ask him just what empirical evidence he's referring to when he says, "Despite the fact that, every few years, new empirical evidence emerges against the very concept of a will that is 'free.'"

Oh, he's still around...him respondin' to you is up to his setting, I reckon.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:08 am A5334E71-C403-4596-9559-FE6225142035.jpeg

Hey there henry.
That prompted some quick thoughts before we’re off on another adventure into the world.

Question:
Determined how?

Answer One:
- Determined by “me,” because I “choose.”
- That doesn’t explain how.
- However ingrained it may be into understanding, choice is really just a word that doesn’t describe what’s happening.

Answer Two:
- Determined by inevitable causation.
- The physical interaction of elements that comprise a situation determine inevitable causation.
- These elements interact according to natural laws of physics, and the outcome, moment-to-moment and frozen in time by imperfect memory, is the only determination being made.
- One is defined as a pronoun, for purposes of explanation.
- The illusion of free will is the result of setting one’s own existence as an observer apart from this process of moment-to-moment inevitable determination.
- The illusion is the apartness, the sense of separation, that creates one’s own observation as the standard against the measured.
- Simply stated, one’s own presence in each and every situation changes that situation in physical ways that otherwise would not have been changed, whether or not one is aware of the specific changes.
- One’s own presence either swims upstream, or downstream, according to the elements that comprise one’s interaction with the body.
- The error of “free will,” is caused by misidentifying “conscious awareness,” that is, confusing awareness of awareness with the inevitable actions/reactions of the body within a particular arrangement of all the elements that comprise a situation.
- Awareness of awareness merely observes awareness of the body and its interactions, and does not influence the body. Natural physical elements, such as ego, influence the body resulting in change known as muscular motion.
- Speculation about possible future movement does not define change, thus when one declares that a choice has been made, the only change has been the flapping of gums and lips.
- Movement defines change.
- If what you are is not now known, what you are not will eventually be known, when awareness of awareness observes the actual, in-time, prolonged moment after the last, the very last, physical exhalation.

Answer 3:

Walker,

For me, the question is simple...

Am I agent or event?

As agent I'm a free will, a cause.

As event I'm not a free will, I'm caused.

My experience of myself, in the world, tells me I'm an agent. I self-direct, am self-responsible. I'm a person.

If, however, I'm just an event, then truly I have no choice and my thinkin' I'm a free will is just as determined as lightning in the sky and dew on the grass. I do not self-direct, and can't be self-responsible. I'm bio-automation.

I see no middle ground: I'm one or the other.

Yes, there’s no contradiction between inevitability and agent.

- Agency is one of the elements comprising a condition.
- Agency is caused.
- Agency initiates motive force.
- Motive force is caused.
- What comprises that cause in terms of agency is often called choice, but that’s just a label because the cause of choice, is caused.

- When the causes are understood then action is seen to be the result of inevitability, however if causes are not understood then the agency is still an element of the condition, a rather complex element that makes understanding the physics of inevitability an insurmountable obstacle for calculating machines that can’t even forecast weather specifics in an imaginary future, let alone predict a strong memory’s effects upon perception of an impartial reality.

- For instance, condemnation of reality is judgment based on memory, and judgment based on hope for what should be, but condemnation cannot be based on impartiality, or equanimity. For instance, condemnation of Biden is based on condemning the corruption of an enlightened system of governance, and not based on the view that such corruption is immune to change.

there’s no contradiction between inevitability and agent

Oh, I see a huge, insurmountable, gulf between inevitability (determinism) and the agent (the free will).

Determinism allows for nuthin' but event causation...an agglutinate of unbroken causal chains.

Agent causation is impossible, absurd, a fiction.

And yet: here we are, two free wills, two impossibilities, mullin' it over.

It's a conundrum.

Declarations, previously reasoned.

- A human is a catalyst.
- A catalyst is part of change, but does not change.
- Change does not require free will.
- Change only requires a motive force.
- Motive force in humans is initiated by either defined or undefined need.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:26 pm

Declarations, previously reasoned.

- A human is a catalyst.
- A catalyst is part of change, but does not change.
- Change does not require free will.
- Change only requires a motive force.
- Motive force in humans is initiated by either defined or undefined need.

Yeah, I'm not fully caffeinated yet, so I'm slow & dull.

You're sayin' there is no free will, that man is not a free will?