More Determinism = More Free-Will???

[Fairy]

We have desire but we are free to go against it.

And so is true freedom having the choice not to choose anything at all then?

No, because if you don't choose you will suffer and eventually die .

Choosing or not choosing are the same, there is no difference between no choice and choice within consciousness.

As awareness, you do not choose to live or die. Choosing only happens in spacetime duality, within the dream, which is all there is, actually.

Awareness is just aware it is conscious of choice, which is the freedom to choose. Intention is the rider of the will, I am conscious of choice as I intend to make a choice.

If there was determinism then there would be no choice to choose, and that everything would already be determined.

[Wizard22]

Maybe Consciousness exists because of Choice??

[bahman]

Then we'd have to do whatever option most desired out of the many options. So are we ever free from the desire? Is desire constraining to ultimate freedom, or is there no such thing as ultimate freedom for a finite being?

We have desire but we are free to go against it.

Desire to empty the bladder, desire to drink when thirsty, desire to breathe, desire to avoid pain, desire to protect your child, desire to press down during labour, desire to eat when hungry, desire to protect oneself against an aggressor, desire for shelter from heat and cold.

How free is a human being?

You are free to resist all those desires! However, in some cases, you may do what is out of your control involuntarily.

[Fairy]

Maybe Consciousness exists because of Choice??

Yes. That's it.

When awareness, knows sensation, consciousness is born.

Awareness is latent, consciousness is knowing, as in conscious of something, as in self-conscious, aware I am aware, they are two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

[Gary Childress]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYiv790TfzI

And what's your take on all this, Gary?

I have no take. I wish I could only give. But when a person has nothing worthwhile to give and everything to need, then he loses his vitality in some sense. The world doesn't seem to be a fair place fundamentally. If there's a God, then we are at God's mercy and for his/her entertainment and that's really about it.

I mean, perhaps there is a God. There seem to be no rules to suggest that there can't be a God. If there is, then conventional wisdom is that there seem to be those who please God sometimes and those who don't. I'm not very pleased with God's world (if there is a God). Not sure how that will pan out. I may find out someday if there is one or I may never find out if there isn't. One thing is for certain. At this moment in time, I'm unsure.

[BigMike]

and that occurrence is itself determined by external influences.

What?! How is hope "determined by external influences"??? Explain yourself, BigMike!

Hope, tempered by common sense as you wisely point out, isn’t some mystical force; it’s a practical tool, a lever within the machinery of cause and effect. The future might be unformed chaos in one sense, but it’s a chaos shaped by countless interconnected factors. And when we understand our place in that system, we can inject the hope that drives action, creating a ripple that pushes the world toward better outcomes.

Hope is not a "tool".

Wizard22, pay attention, because this isn’t complicated unless you make it so. Hope, like any thought or feeling, doesn’t emerge from some magical, untouchable realm of “free” emotions. It’s triggered, shaped, and sustained by external influences—circumstances, interactions, information, or events that occur around you and within you. When you’re exposed to uplifting news, inspiring examples, or even just the prospect of a better outcome, the conditions for hope are set in motion. That’s cause and effect in action.

If you’re arguing that hope is some self-contained phenomenon, independent of external inputs, then you’re ignoring how human psychology works. People don’t just conjure hope out of nowhere. It arises because something—a conversation, an observation, a story—planted the seed. Even internal reflection, which you might argue is “self-generated,” is guided by external stimuli you’ve encountered in the past.

And as for hope being a "tool," your dismissal doesn’t negate the point. A tool is simply something used to achieve an outcome, and hope fits that description perfectly. It’s an emotional lever that can drive action, push people to keep going, or inspire them to take meaningful steps toward change. Call it a tool, a mechanism, or an effect—it doesn’t matter. What matters is that hope doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s part of the deterministic web, influenced and influencing in turn.

If you still can’t see how hope is determined by external influences, take a step back and think about the times you’ve felt hope yourself. What sparked it? A completely uncaused moment, floating in isolation? Or something—a person, a moment, an idea—that shifted your perspective? The answer should be obvious if you’re willing to pay attention.

[Gary Childress]

@Big Mike: So, it sounds like you believe in free will in the sense that we are free to choose among possible alternatives, however, we are not free to choose impossible alternatives. Is that correct?

[Belinda]

We have desire but we are free to go against it.

Desire to empty the bladder, desire to drink when thirsty, desire to breathe, desire to avoid pain, desire to protect your child, desire to press down during labour, desire to eat when hungry, desire to protect oneself against an aggressor, desire for shelter from heat and cold.

How free is a human being?

You are free to resist all those desires! However, in some cases, you may do what is out of your control involuntarily.

You were never in labour were you!

You need to study human nervous systems.

[Fairy]

Desire to empty the bladder, desire to drink when thirsty, desire to breathe, desire to avoid pain, desire to protect your child, desire to press down during labour, desire to eat when hungry, desire to protect oneself against an aggressor, desire for shelter from heat and cold.

How free is a human being?

You are free to resist all those desires! However, in some cases, you may do what is out of your control involuntarily.

You were never in labour were you!

You need to study human nervous systems.

But he did include the notion of involuntary movement which suggests control is only an artificial human construct.

I'm also sure that most philosophers on this forum understand the concept of what is a nervous system and how it works.

[Belinda]

You are free to resist all those desires! However, in some cases, you may do what is out of your control involuntarily.

You were never in labour were you!

You need to study human nervous systems.

But he did include the notion of involuntary movement which suggests control is only an artificial human construct.

I'm also sure that most philosophers on this forum understand the concept of what is a nervous system and how it works.

Yes, indeed he did. But when he said "involuntary" he did not differentiate between spinal reflexes for instance and automatic reactions that can be inhibited. Second stage labour pains for instance are so intense that I doubt if any woman can inhibit bearing down. However in a pathological nervous condition called dyskinesia the involuntary movements can sometimes be inhibited.

[Fairy]

You were never in labour were you!

You need to study human nervous systems.

But he did include the notion of involuntary movement which suggests control is only an artificial human construct.

I'm also sure that most philosophers on this forum understand the concept of what is a nervous system and how it works.

Yes, indeed he did. But when he said "involuntary" he did not differentiate between spinal reflexes for instance and automatic reactions that can be inhibited. Second stage labour pains for instance are so intense that I doubt if any woman can inhibit bearing down. However in a pathological nervous condition called dyskinesia the involuntary movements can sometimes be inhibited.

The point is, it's all you anyway. It's all the illusion of control where there is none. I think Bahman is on that level of understanding, he'll have to clarify.

[Belinda]

But he did include the notion of involuntary movement which suggests control is only an artificial human construct.

I'm also sure that most philosophers on this forum understand the concept of what is a nervous system and how it works.

Yes, indeed he did. But when he said "involuntary" he did not differentiate between spinal reflexes for instance and automatic reactions that can be inhibited. Second stage labour pains for instance are so intense that I doubt if any woman can inhibit bearing down. However in a pathological nervous condition called dyskinesia the involuntary movements can sometimes be inhibited.

The point is, it's all you anyway. It's all the illusion of control where there is none. I think Bahman is on that level of understanding, he'll have to clarify.

Control is no illusion. Even very romantic people who like to give full scope to their feelings should understand that there are times and places where one is safer and happier to control acting on their feelings.
Control over feelings is possible when reason is sufficiently engaged. Feelings are cognitive and are not solely reactions or reflexes.

[Wizard22]

Control is no illusion. Even very romantic people who like to give full scope to their feelings should understand that there are times and places where one is safer and happier to control acting on their feelings.
Control over feelings is possible when reason is sufficiently engaged. Feelings are cognitive and are not solely reactions or reflexes.

I thought you denied Free-Will, yet you presume Self-Control? How?

Care to explain this contradiction?

[Wizard22]

Isn't it obvious that without Self-Consciousness, nobody would ever truly know whether they are externally controlled or not?

Is a house pet aware of their being controlled, like a dog to his or her Master? Or isn't it a seamless experience, unquestioned and undoubted?

Then, people generally aren't aware of their own Faith or Beliefs.

[Fairy]

Control is no illusion. Even very romantic people who like to give full scope to their feelings should understand that there are times and places where one is safer and happier to control acting on their feelings.
Control over feelings is possible when reason is sufficiently engaged. Feelings are cognitive and are not solely reactions or reflexes.

The idea that someone can control acting on their feelings is the illusion.

Acting is the illusory sense of self. The real self is spontaneous, it doesn't act, it cannot fake an emotion or feeling..