Philosophy Now Forum

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:51 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:48 amIn the quotes in the op, it doesn't look like that to me. It looks too me like he's talking positively about freedom, not at if its this fake thing, an illusion or delusion.

Then how do you explain this:

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 1:52 pmWhat exists is the illusion of freedom: the subjective experience of weighing options and making choices. That experience is real, but it is entirely determined by the physical and causal conditions of your existence.

How is it not a contradiction?

He quite clearly states "illusion of freedom".

He didn't say that in your quotes in the op so I missed that. I was only talking about what was in the op.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:54 amWizard22, you’re twisting the concept into knots that don’t exist. Let’s untangle it. When I say freedom is an illusion, I’m not saying the experience of freedom doesn’t happen—of course it happens. You feel it. I feel it. We all feel it. But feeling something doesn’t make it objectively true. That’s the key distinction.

Think about a mirage in the desert. You see water shimmering on the horizon. The experience of seeing the mirage is real—you’re perceiving something—but there’s no actual water there. Similarly, the experience of freedom feels real because our brains are wired to process decisions in a way that creates this sense of agency. However, what’s behind that feeling is not some magical, uncaused force of "free will" but rather a complex chain of causes that led you to make that decision.

This is how freedom can be both an illusion and a real experience. The experience of choice—the deliberation, the weighing of options, the sense of control—is genuinely happening in your mind. But the causes behind it? Those are entirely deterministic: your genetics, your upbringing, your environment, the current state of your neurons. You feel free because your brain doesn’t consciously register all those causes in real-time—it just delivers the final product: a decision.

So no, it’s not contradictory to say that the experience of freedom is real while the idea of freedom as some uncaused, independent force is illusory. Your brain is an incredibly complex system, capable of simulating what feels like autonomy. But peel back the layers, and you’ll find nothing but a deterministic process chugging along, as it always has. That’s the reality we’re working with.

BigMike, you seem to be confusing Illusion with Reality.

I don't see how they're cohesive, at all. Things which people believe are real, but are not so, are then NOT real, and therefore illusions. Are they not?

An Illusion then, is a disagreement between subjects about Reality, along with errors of perception of any hypothetical "Objective Reality".

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:00 amHe didn't say that in your quotes in the op so I missed that. I was only talking about what was in the op.

No problem, I await BigMike's clarifications...

( viewtopic.php?t=43363 )

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:03 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 9:54 amWizard22, you’re twisting the concept into knots that don’t exist. Let’s untangle it. When I say freedom is an illusion, I’m not saying the experience of freedom doesn’t happen—of course it happens. You feel it. I feel it. We all feel it. But feeling something doesn’t make it objectively true. That’s the key distinction.

Think about a mirage in the desert. You see water shimmering on the horizon. The experience of seeing the mirage is real—you’re perceiving something—but there’s no actual water there. Similarly, the experience of freedom feels real because our brains are wired to process decisions in a way that creates this sense of agency. However, what’s behind that feeling is not some magical, uncaused force of "free will" but rather a complex chain of causes that led you to make that decision.

This is how freedom can be both an illusion and a real experience. The experience of choice—the deliberation, the weighing of options, the sense of control—is genuinely happening in your mind. But the causes behind it? Those are entirely deterministic: your genetics, your upbringing, your environment, the current state of your neurons. You feel free because your brain doesn’t consciously register all those causes in real-time—it just delivers the final product: a decision.

So no, it’s not contradictory to say that the experience of freedom is real while the idea of freedom as some uncaused, independent force is illusory. Your brain is an incredibly complex system, capable of simulating what feels like autonomy. But peel back the layers, and you’ll find nothing but a deterministic process chugging along, as it always has. That’s the reality we’re working with.

BigMike, you seem to be confusing Illusion with Reality.

I don't see how they're cohesive, at all. Things which people believe are real, but are not so, are then NOT real, and therefore illusions. Are they not?

An Illusion then, is a disagreement between subjects about Reality, along with errors of perception of any hypothetical "Objective Reality".

Wizard22, you're right to point out that illusions are disagreements between perception and objective reality. But that's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. Let me break this down further.

When I call freedom an "illusion," I’m talking about the gap between how things feel and how things actually work. The subjective experience of freedom—of choosing between different options, of feeling in control—is entirely real as an experience. It’s happening in your mind. But the underlying mechanism creating that experience doesn’t align with what you think it represents. That’s the illusion.

Here’s a clearer analogy: consider a movie. When you watch a film, you experience motion—the characters run, cars chase, things explode. That experience feels real in the moment, but it’s an illusion. What’s actually happening? A series of still images is being shown in rapid succession, and your brain interprets that as movement. The experience of motion is real, but the motion itself doesn’t exist in the way you perceive it.

Similarly, your sense of freedom—the idea that you’re an autonomous agent acting independently of prior causes—is a product of your brain's processing. It feels like you’re freely choosing, but every “choice” is determined by the countless causes leading up to it: your genetics, past experiences, neural pathways, and the environment in that moment. The illusion isn’t the experience; it’s the belief that this experience represents uncaused freedom.

So yes, an illusion is a mismatch between perception and reality. But in this case, the reality is that all your actions are determined by causation. The illusion is believing that freedom exists outside that framework. The two ideas—illusion and reality—coexist because the illusion happens in your mind, while reality exists independently of what you perceive. That’s the cohesion you’re missing.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:29 amWizard22, you're right to point out that illusions are disagreements between perception and objective reality. But that's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. Let me break this down further.

When I call freedom an "illusion," I’m talking about the gap between how things feel and how things actually work. The subjective experience of freedom—of choosing between different options, of feeling in control—is entirely real as an experience. It’s happening in your mind. But the underlying mechanism creating that experience doesn’t align with what you think it represents. That’s the illusion.

Here’s a clearer analogy: consider a movie. When you watch a film, you experience motion—the characters run, cars chase, things explode. That experience feels real in the moment, but it’s an illusion. What’s actually happening? A series of still images is being shown in rapid succession, and your brain interprets that as movement. The experience of motion is real, but the motion itself doesn’t exist in the way you perceive it.

Similarly, your sense of freedom—the idea that you’re an autonomous agent acting independently of prior causes—is a product of your brain's processing. It feels like you’re freely choosing, but every “choice” is determined by the countless causes leading up to it: your genetics, past experiences, neural pathways, and the environment in that moment. The illusion isn’t the experience; it’s the belief that this experience represents uncaused freedom.

So yes, an illusion is a mismatch between perception and reality. But in this case, the reality is that all your actions are determined by causation. The illusion is believing that freedom exists outside that framework. The two ideas—illusion and reality—coexist because the illusion happens in your mind, while reality exists independently of what you perceive. That’s the cohesion you’re missing.

On the contrary, 'freedom' is not in the movie, but in reality. So your analogy is reversed.

By the way, my definition of 'freedom' is not entirely contained with what may be caused or un-caused, determined or un-determined. That's what makes freedom, free, in the first place. It might be determined; it might not be. However, you seem to believe that freedom could only ever be 'determined', and specifically, as an illusion in the minds of subjects.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 11:05 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 10:29 amWizard22, you're right to point out that illusions are disagreements between perception and objective reality. But that's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. Let me break this down further.

When I call freedom an "illusion," I’m talking about the gap between how things feel and how things actually work. The subjective experience of freedom—of choosing between different options, of feeling in control—is entirely real as an experience. It’s happening in your mind. But the underlying mechanism creating that experience doesn’t align with what you think it represents. That’s the illusion.

Here’s a clearer analogy: consider a movie. When you watch a film, you experience motion—the characters run, cars chase, things explode. That experience feels real in the moment, but it’s an illusion. What’s actually happening? A series of still images is being shown in rapid succession, and your brain interprets that as movement. The experience of motion is real, but the motion itself doesn’t exist in the way you perceive it.

Similarly, your sense of freedom—the idea that you’re an autonomous agent acting independently of prior causes—is a product of your brain's processing. It feels like you’re freely choosing, but every “choice” is determined by the countless causes leading up to it: your genetics, past experiences, neural pathways, and the environment in that moment. The illusion isn’t the experience; it’s the belief that this experience represents uncaused freedom.

So yes, an illusion is a mismatch between perception and reality. But in this case, the reality is that all your actions are determined by causation. The illusion is believing that freedom exists outside that framework. The two ideas—illusion and reality—coexist because the illusion happens in your mind, while reality exists independently of what you perceive. That’s the cohesion you’re missing.

On the contrary, 'freedom' is not in the movie, but in reality. So your analogy is reversed.

By the way, my definition of 'freedom' is not entirely contained with what may be caused or un-caused, determined or un-determined. That's what makes freedom, free, in the first place. It might be determined; it might not be. However, you seem to believe that freedom could only ever be 'determined', and specifically, as an illusion in the minds of subjects.

Wizard22, if we're going to talk about freedom in the context of free will, we need to be clear about what we're defining. "Free" in this discussion isn’t just about vague notions of autonomy or independence—it fundamentally refers to actions or decisions that are un-caused by external factors. In other words, true freedom, as you're describing it, would mean that a choice arises independently of the chain of events, influences, and conditions that precede it.

Now, let’s unpack that. If freedom means being un-caused by external factors, then what you’re proposing is something that exists outside the deterministic web of cause and effect. That’s a tall order because it requires you to demonstrate how something could exist without being influenced or conditioned by anything else—essentially, how it could arise from nothing. And here’s the sticking point: when we examine the world, from the behavior of particles to the firing of neurons, we don’t find examples of uncaused phenomena. Everything we observe operates within the framework of causation.

Even if you were to suggest that freedom might be determined or un-determined, as you imply, that’s still a contradiction. If freedom is "free," in the sense of being un-caused, it can’t simultaneously be determined by prior causes. It’s one or the other. What you’re left with is either an unbroken chain of causation—which is determinism—or randomness, which isn’t freedom in any meaningful sense.

So let’s bring this back to your critique of my analogy. Freedom as you seem to define it—uncaused by external factors—is like the movie. It feels real, it’s deeply compelling, but when you dig into the mechanics, you find causation at every level. The freedom you describe doesn’t exist in reality because there’s no evidence for uncaused actions, just like there’s no actual motion in a film reel. The experience is real; the interpretation of what’s happening is where the illusion lies.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 12:33 pmWizard22, if we're going to talk about freedom in the context of free will, we need to be clear about what we're defining. "Free" in this discussion isn’t just about vague notions of autonomy or independence—it fundamentally refers to actions or decisions that are un-caused by external factors. In other words, true freedom, as you're describing it, would mean that a choice arises independently of the chain of events, influences, and conditions that precede it.

Now, let’s unpack that. If freedom means being un-caused by external factors, then what you’re proposing is something that exists outside the deterministic web of cause and effect. That’s a tall order because it requires you to demonstrate how something could exist without being influenced or conditioned by anything else—essentially, how it could arise from nothing. And here’s the sticking point: when we examine the world, from the behavior of particles to the firing of neurons, we don’t find examples of uncaused phenomena. Everything we observe operates within the framework of causation.

And yet, on the Quantum and Nano levels of particles and quarks, Physicists do NOT know and can NOT predict the movement, patterns, or 'frameworks' of sub-atomic particles. So no, "everything we observe" does not fall into "the framework of causation". Rather the "framework of causation" is something you've implied all along, as-if there is some type of Universal, Absolute, or Objective quality that does not differ from person to person. You presume a 'logical coherence', that certain events must proceed from a prior event. This is what you call "Causality".

Yet there is no such "Universal Cause"--or you have not show, demonstrated, or provided evidence for one. All you've done and argued, is one reiteration and reconfirmation after the other, of your 'logical sequencing'.

My contention is that if there is 'Causality' then it must be local, temporal, and confined... NOT objective, nor universal, nor absolute.

There are circumstances where lighting a fuse to dynamite, will NOT cause it to explode. Because there is no absolutely true 'Causality' then, Causes and Effects are only ever circumstantial and never universal. So too must this apply to your understanding of "Determinism".

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 12:33 pmEven if you were to suggest that freedom might be determined or un-determined, as you imply, that’s still a contradiction. If freedom is "free," in the sense of being un-caused, it can’t simultaneously be determined by prior causes. It’s one or the other. What you’re left with is either an unbroken chain of causation—which is determinism—or randomness, which isn’t freedom in any meaningful sense.

So let’s bring this back to your critique of my analogy. Freedom as you seem to define it—uncaused by external factors—is like the movie. It feels real, it’s deeply compelling, but when you dig into the mechanics, you find causation at every level. The freedom you describe doesn’t exist in reality because there’s no evidence for uncaused actions, just like there’s no actual motion in a film reel. The experience is real; the interpretation of what’s happening is where the illusion lies.

Freedom is not in the Movie, though. Freedom is outside that framework altogether. A person can choose to watch a movie or not. A person can choose to engage in the fantasy (Illusion) or not. Furthermore a person can distinguish between Reality and Fantasy/Illusion.

You've provided no reason why Freedom should be illusion rather than reality.

BigMike, I believe you are making the same mistake as most other Determinists.

You presume a set of rules ("Framework") for a game like...Football. Then you say that the players of Football are "not free" from those rules, to play the game, and that the game's results can be 'Determined' from those sets of rules and the players of the game. But the greater 'Freedom' is not within the game, but also outside of it. If you can change the rules of the game, freely, then you can no longer predict (ie. Determine) the consequences and results of that game.

Freedom is outside the 'Framework' / Rules / Laws / Natural Law, entirely. So you cannot confine "Freedom" to only within frameworks. You have to apply it to the frameworks themselves.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 1:12 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 12:33 pmWizard22, if we're going to talk about freedom in the context of free will, we need to be clear about what we're defining. "Free" in this discussion isn’t just about vague notions of autonomy or independence—it fundamentally refers to actions or decisions that are un-caused by external factors. In other words, true freedom, as you're describing it, would mean that a choice arises independently of the chain of events, influences, and conditions that precede it.

Now, let’s unpack that. If freedom means being un-caused by external factors, then what you’re proposing is something that exists outside the deterministic web of cause and effect. That’s a tall order because it requires you to demonstrate how something could exist without being influenced or conditioned by anything else—essentially, how it could arise from nothing. And here’s the sticking point: when we examine the world, from the behavior of particles to the firing of neurons, we don’t find examples of uncaused phenomena. Everything we observe operates within the framework of causation.

And yet, on the Quantum and Nano levels of particles and quarks, Physicists do NOT know and can NOT predict the movement, patterns, or 'frameworks' of sub-atomic particles. So no, "everything we observe" does not fall into "the framework of causation". Rather the "framework of causation" is something you've implied all along, as-if there is some type of Universal, Absolute, or Objective quality that does not differ from person to person. You presume a 'logical coherence', that certain events must proceed from a prior event. This is what you call "Causality".

Yet there is no such "Universal Cause"--or you have not show, demonstrated, or provided evidence for one. All you've done and argued, is one reiteration and reconfirmation after the other, of your 'logical sequencing'.

My contention is that if there is 'Causality' then it must be local, temporal, and confined... NOT objective, nor universal, nor absolute.

There are circumstances where lighting a fuse to dynamite, will NOT cause it to explode. Because there is no absolutely true 'Causality' then, Causes and Effects are only ever circumstantial and never universal. So too must this apply to your understanding of "Determinism".

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 12:33 pmEven if you were to suggest that freedom might be determined or un-determined, as you imply, that’s still a contradiction. If freedom is "free," in the sense of being un-caused, it can’t simultaneously be determined by prior causes. It’s one or the other. What you’re left with is either an unbroken chain of causation—which is determinism—or randomness, which isn’t freedom in any meaningful sense.

So let’s bring this back to your critique of my analogy. Freedom as you seem to define it—uncaused by external factors—is like the movie. It feels real, it’s deeply compelling, but when you dig into the mechanics, you find causation at every level. The freedom you describe doesn’t exist in reality because there’s no evidence for uncaused actions, just like there’s no actual motion in a film reel. The experience is real; the interpretation of what’s happening is where the illusion lies.

Freedom is not in the Movie, though. Freedom is outside that framework altogether. A person can choose to watch a movie or not. A person can choose to engage in the fantasy (Illusion) or not. Furthermore a person can distinguish between Reality and Fantasy/Illusion.

You've provided no reason why Freedom should be illusion rather than reality.

Wizard22, your argument is an exercise in missing the point entirely. Let’s cut through your misdirections and face the facts. You claim that causality is "local, temporal, and confined" and therefore not universal or absolute. That’s a bold assertion, but it’s nothing more than empty rhetoric until you back it up with actual evidence.

Quantum mechanics, which you’re so eager to invoke, doesn’t help your case. Yes, at the quantum level, particles behave in ways that seem probabilistic rather than deterministic. But probabilistic doesn’t mean "uncaused." Even quantum events occur within a framework of rules—probability distributions, wave functions, and interactions. The randomness you’re clinging to is not freedom; it’s just uncertainty. And uncertainty isn’t agency—it’s chaos. If you want to argue that freedom stems from randomness, you’re not defending free will; you’re embracing an incoherent mess where choices are no more meaningful than the roll of a dice.

Now, on this nonsense about causality being "circumstantial": causality isn’t something you can cherry-pick when it suits you. The laws of physics—yes, universal, objective laws—govern every interaction, from the formation of galaxies to the firing of neurons in your brain. Your "circumstances where lighting a fuse to dynamite doesn’t cause an explosion" are irrelevant exceptions to the specific conditions required for combustion—not a refutation of causality itself. If the fuse doesn’t ignite the dynamite, it’s because a necessary condition wasn’t met, not because causality somehow ceased to exist.

And let’s address your final attempt to claim that freedom exists "outside the framework altogether." This is pure hand-waving. Freedom can’t exist "outside the framework" because there is no outside. Everything we observe—every thought, every action, every so-called "choice"—exists within the framework of cause and effect. Your imagined "freedom" isn’t outside anything; it’s a fantasy born of refusing to grapple with reality.

Here’s the harsh truth you seem unwilling to face: the deterministic nature of the universe doesn’t make your experience of agency any less rich or meaningful, but it does mean that your choices arise from causes. You don’t get to claim an undefined, magical "freedom" that operates outside causation just because you don’t like the implications of determinism. Freedom, as you define it, is not only unsupported—it’s a logical impossibility. Deal with it.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 1:14 pm BigMike, I believe you are making the same mistake as most other Determinists.

You presume a set of rules ("Framework") for a game like...Football. Then you say that the players of Football are "not free" from those rules, to play the game, and that the game's results can be 'Determined' from those sets of rules and the players of the game. But the greater 'Freedom' is not within the game, but also outside of it. If you can change the rules of the game, freely, then you can no longer predict (ie. Determine) the consequences and results of that game.

Freedom is outside the 'Framework' / Rules / Laws / Natural Law, entirely. So you cannot confine "Freedom" to only within frameworks. You have to apply it to the frameworks themselves.

Wizard22, your argument collapses under its own weight because it’s rooted in a misunderstanding of both determinism and the nature of frameworks. Let me be brutally clear: the notion that freedom exists "outside the framework" is a desperate attempt to sidestep causality without providing any coherent explanation for how this magical "freedom" could operate.

Your analogy of football is laughably misplaced. Changing the rules of the game doesn’t free you from causation; it merely shifts the framework. The decision to change the rules, the reasoning behind it, and the outcomes of that change are all themselves caused. Whether you’re playing by one set of rules or another, every action, every choice, every outcome remains embedded in a causal chain. The framework is dynamic, yes, but it’s still governed by the same fundamental laws of physics, logic, and causation.

Now, your claim that "freedom is outside the framework" is where this falls apart completely. What does it even mean to exist "outside the framework"? If you’re suggesting that freedom exists in some undefined, lawless void, then it’s not freedom; it’s incoherence. There is no "outside" of natural law. Everything we observe, every phenomenon, every interaction, operates within the causal structure of reality. If you want to assert otherwise, you bear the burden of proof to show where, when, or how this magical "outside" exists. So far, you’ve offered nothing but hand-waving and vague assertions.

Let me put this plainly: you cannot claim that freedom is real while simultaneously removing it from the constraints that define reality itself. Freedom, as you’re describing it—something that isn’t determined, influenced, or bound by any framework—isn’t just unproven; it’s logically incoherent. You can’t have an action without a cause, a choice without influences, or a framework without rules. That’s not freedom—it’s fantasy.

Your argument, like your analogy, is hollow. If you can’t provide evidence for your "freedom outside the framework," then what you’re really advocating for is belief without reason—a retreat into the very mysticism determinism dismantles.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 1:28 pmWizard22, your argument collapses under its own weight because it’s rooted in a misunderstanding of both determinism and the nature of frameworks. Let me be brutally clear: the notion that freedom exists "outside the framework" is a desperate attempt to sidestep causality without providing any coherent explanation for how this magical "freedom" could operate.

Your analogy of football is laughably misplaced. Changing the rules of the game doesn’t free you from causation; it merely shifts the framework. The decision to change the rules, the reasoning behind it, and the outcomes of that change are all themselves caused. Whether you’re playing by one set of rules or another, every action, every choice, every outcome remains embedded in a causal chain. The framework is dynamic, yes, but it’s still governed by the same fundamental laws of physics, logic, and causation.

Now, your claim that "freedom is outside the framework" is where this falls apart completely. What does it even mean to exist "outside the framework"? If you’re suggesting that freedom exists in some undefined, lawless void, then it’s not freedom; it’s incoherence. There is no "outside" of natural law. Everything we observe, every phenomenon, every interaction, operates within the causal structure of reality. If you want to assert otherwise, you bear the burden of proof to show where, when, or how this magical "outside" exists. So far, you’ve offered nothing but hand-waving and vague assertions.

Let me put this plainly: you cannot claim that freedom is real while simultaneously removing it from the constraints that define reality itself. Freedom, as you’re describing it—something that isn’t determined, influenced, or bound by any framework—isn’t just unproven; it’s logically incoherent. You can’t have an action without a cause, a choice without influences, or a framework without rules. That’s not freedom—it’s fantasy.

Your argument, like your analogy, is hollow. If you can’t provide evidence for your "freedom outside the framework," then what you’re really advocating for is belief without reason—a retreat into the very mysticism determinism dismantles.

( viewtopic.php?t=43369 )

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 1:14 pm BigMike, I believe you are making the same mistake as most other Determinists.

You presume a set of rules ("Framework") for a game like...Football. Then you say that the players of Football are "not free" from those rules, to play the game, and that the game's results can be 'Determined' from those sets of rules and the players of the game. But the greater 'Freedom' is not within the game, but also outside of it. If you can change the rules of the game, freely, then you can no longer predict (ie. Determine) the consequences and results of that game.

Freedom is outside the 'Framework' / Rules / Laws / Natural Law, entirely. So you cannot confine "Freedom" to only within frameworks. You have to apply it to the frameworks themselves.

But how can there possibly be actual objective freedom unless it's freedom relative to constraints? I say"freedom" as in freedom to act as agent of change.

Take any machinery------- say the internal combustion engine------ the engine can't move unless the cylinder constricts the piston,
A biological model------ the humerus has no force unless unless it's constricted by its socket in the shoulder blade.
The complex biological system which is us can't be an agent for change unless it's constrained by any of a multitude of factors that exert the opposite force.
The what you call "the framework" must be in place before the change event can happen.
I disagree with BigMike if he is saying that freedom is solely psychological, because I am saying that freedom does exist but that it must relate to the constraints of the causal framework. After all, we know and can only explain events by way of the causal "framework".

I challenge you to explain any event, say say a football match, without a causal narrative. You can do a narrative that describes but not explains: you can do a narrative that tells how you feel without explaining your feelings: you can do a historical narrative that is no more than a sort of list of battles or football goals and so on . But without determinism you cannot do an explanatory narrative such as e.g. "Why we need a substantial breakfast" or "Why Hitler rose to power" or " Why Dick became Lord Mayor of London" or "What fire storms are likely to happen next" or "Why she decided to rob that bank " or "Why Manchester United won the match".

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:25 amBut how can there possibly be actual objective freedom unless it's freedom relative to constraints? I say"freedom" as in freedom to act as agent of change.

Take any machinery------- say the internal combustion engine------ the engine can't move unless the cylinder constricts the piston,
A biological model------ the humerus has no force unless unless it's constricted by its socket in the shoulder blade.
The complex biological system which is us can't be an agent for change unless it's constrained by any of a multitude of factors that exert the opposite force.
The what you call "the framework" must be in place before the change event can happen.
I disagree with BigMike if he is saying that freedom is solely psychological, because I am saying that freedom does exist but that it must relate to the constraints of the causal framework. After all, we know and can only explain events by way of the causal "framework".

By my understanding of BigMike's position, he claims that human experience can never be "free from" Causality, and that Causality is a type of Universal Force or Occurrence. Therefore "Causality" is happening to us, whether we want it to or not, whether we are aware of it or not. In this way, my counter-argument to him is, it's no longer scientific, empirical, or prove-able.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2025 10:25 amI challenge you to explain any event, say say a football match, without a causal narrative. You can do a narrative that describes but not explains: you can do a narrative that tells how you feel without explaining your feelings: you can do a historical narrative that is no more than a sort of list of battles or football goals and so on . But without determinism you cannot do an explanatory narrative such as e.g. "Why we need a substantial breakfast" or "Why Hitler rose to power" or " Why Dick became Lord Mayor of London" or "What fire storms are likely to happen next" or "Why she decided to rob that bank " or "Why Manchester United won the match".

Do the "rules of football" cause football games? No, but they are the framework which both describe and explain any particular football game. So "frameworks" are the boundaries of causes, by which we set the foundation for "causes" to exist. Frameworks are used to set the parameters of causes, rationalize and justify causes.

"Freedom" therein, is a matter of BOTH the framework, and 'within' the experiences of causes and effects. Freedom applies to both the abstraction (rules and logic) and the experiences (of the football game being played or watched).

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 1:01 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2025 3:16 pm

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2025 12:29 pm
You don't know that--and you can't prove it if you did know it. Freedom is in spite of determinism, not because of it.

To be Free, is to be Un-determined.

Wizard22, the claim that "to be free is to be un-determined" raises an important question: what does it actually mean for something to be "un-determined"? If by "un-determined," you mean actions that arise without cause, you’re proposing something that contradicts not only physics but also basic logic. An uncaused action would be completely random—something arising from nowhere, influenced by nothing. How could such randomness ever resemble freedom or intentionality?

What you describe as "freedom in spite of determinism" is more likely a subjective experience—our sense of making choices or taking control. But that feeling doesn’t mean the underlying process is free from causation. Just as the laws of nature govern physical systems, the same principles guide the neural, genetic, and environmental factors that create your experience of agency.

To argue that freedom exists outside of determinism is to assert that actions can happen independently of the causes that give rise to them. If that were true, we would have to abandon the very framework that allows us to understand and predict reality—including the framework that gives us science, technology, and reason itself. That’s a high price to pay for preserving an unprovable notion of freedom.

The real marvel is not that freedom exists independently of determinism, but that the deterministic web of causes produces the rich complexity we experience as choice, creativity, and agency. That’s where human excellence truly shines—not in defiance of causation, but as its extraordinary result.

In the "Can the Secularists be Trusted?" thread, BigMike made the following claim/conclusion upon debating Determinism vs. Free-Will:

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2025 3:16 pmThe real marvel is not that freedom exists independently of determinism, but that the deterministic web of causes produces the rich complexity we experience as choice, creativity, and agency. That’s where human excellence truly shines—not in defiance of causation, but as its extraordinary result.

To Mike and PN Forum Users:

Do you agree with these claims/conclusions?

Is Freedom (aka. "Free-Will) the 'inevitable' result of "More Determinism"? And if so, how? How does "more determinism" = "more freedom"?

Such a nonsense! We are free when there are options. If there is only one option then you have to do what you have to do.