Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:41 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:35 amI believe in free will.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:35 amI don't believe or disbelieve anything.

Speaks for its self.

Context

I think it's time to add you to my ignore list.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:22 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:41 am

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:35 amI believe in free will.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:35 amI don't believe or disbelieve anything.

Speaks for its self.

Context

In the context of its own self.

In one post;
You wrote, I don't believe any thing, and, you also actually wrote the exact opposite, I believe some thing.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:22 amI think it's time to add you to my ignore list.

Please.

TimeSeeker wrote:
By Occams razor a system with two digits ( 0 and I ) is far simpler than a system with I0 digits ( 0 to 9 ) So why has society CHOSEN B

Some possible answers :

There are sometimes more than two choices
More choices means more freedom [ fewer choices mean less freedom ]

Also base ten is easier for humans because we have eight fingers and two thumbs so it be the obvious one for us
Specific numbers in a system with fewer digits [ like binary ] are by comparison harder to differentiate between

These two for example are harder to differentiate between

00000III00000 / 000000III00000

than these two

7854668953 / 9854668953

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:26 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:22 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:41 am



Speaks for its self.

Context

In the context of its own self.

In one post;
You wrote, I don't believe any thing, and, you also actually wrote the exact opposite, I believe some thing.

If you scroll back a few posts you will see that I copy/pasted the exact same post.

Because you ignored it the first time.

And the 2nd time you interpreted it out of context.

So that you can derail the “conversation” again and nitpick my words . This communications thing - you are a slow learner.

And since your comprehension is limited I will rephrase it:

I don’t have any beliefs or disbeliefs about YOUR beliefs or disbeliefs (which you claim you don’t have, but have not yet identified).

Ironically - you haven’t identified your beliefs any more than you have identified your free will...

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:58 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
By Occams razor a system with two digits ( 0 and I ) is far simpler than a system with I0 digits ( 0 to 9 ) So why has society CHOSEN B

Some possible answers :

There are sometimes more than two choices
More choices means more freedom [ fewer choices mean less freedom ]

Also base ten is easier for humans because we have eight fingers and two thumbs so it be the obvious one for us
Specific numbers in a system with fewer digits [ like binary ] are by comparison harder to differentiate between

These two for example are harder to differentiate between

00000III00000 / 000000III00000

than these two

7854668953 / 9854668953

Observe how you are already engineering a tool. For human use.

Based on knowledge of self and others.

Everywhere a choice exists: a bias towards the operator of the tool exists. That is why science can never be objective.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:35 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:54 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:14 pm
It's as simple as this: You are using your choice as evidence for "free will".

Well if, as you say, I am using My choice as EVIDENCE, for 'free will', then I have succeeded in what I set out to do, in your thread of all things. Go figure.

So, that is settled.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:14 pmWhen I ask you to justify your choices you point to back to free will. You are using the one to justify the other in a circular fashion. It's a fallacy: https://grammarist.com/rhetoric/begging ... n-fallacy/

Call it whatever you like.

If you can't justify your choice with anything but appeal to "free will", how can you tell that you aren't simply choosing what society has programmed you to choose?

If, LOL, "society" has programmed Me to choose what I did, and as you suggest, I am using some thing as EVIDENCE for free will, then that means that, that "society" predetermined this, free willed, outcome. Therefore, determinism is True, Right, and Correct, just as I have said and agreed with ALL along here. Die you MISS that part, also?

Are you at all aware of what has been happening here?

Also, If you BELIEVE "society" has programmed Me to choose what I did, then WHAT programmed "society" prior to that? And, WHAT exactly programmed THAT prior to THAT? And, so on.

If you WANT to continue down the 'determinism' route, then be prepared to go ALL the way. I am, are you?

I have already gone that route that eternity and infinity route AND returned the FULL CIRCLE. What I FOUND and DISCOVERED was the resolution to ALL of Life's so called "problems". Now if you WOULD like to go on THIS journey also, and become less wrong, then let us continue.

However, if you just WANT to "prove" that only determinism is RIGHT, then please go ahead, like you have been, and keep continually TRYING.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:14 pmYou didn't demonstrate "free will" to me.

Of course I did NOT. I KNOW I did NOT.

I also KNOW that I NEVER will, as long as you maintain the BELIEF that you have RIGHT NOW.

Do you WANT to KNOW WHY I could NEVER demonstrate 'free will' to YOU?

The reason I did not and never could demonstrate free will, to YOU, is because you BELIEVE the opposite is TRUE. You BELIEVE free will is an impossibility, correct?

INCORRECT. I believe in free will. Because I know I have it. I can justify ALL of my choices THEREFORE I have free will. It is because you can't justify your choices is why I am doubting whether you have free will. It doesn't look like you have found it and claimed it yet.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:54 pm As I have explained, in this forum, MANY times ALREADY, It is IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate the opposite of THAT BELIEF, of what a person HOLDS as being already TRUE.

Since this is just a strawman and I don't believe the "opposite" of what you think I believe - you should be able to demonstrate...

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:54 pm I have tried just about every thing to get past and through a BELIEF, when it is being held onto by a human being.

Even THEE actual TRUTH of some thing can NOT get through a BELIEF, that the opposite is true.

For evidence of THIS, find an adult human being, any adult human being will do for this, with a BELIEF, which you KNOW, for sure, is WRONG. Now, put THEE actual TRUTH in front of that person, and you will FIND OUT if they can SEE the truth or not.

If you are to lazy to try this yourself or if you just do not want to do it, then you CAN go back through My writings here, in this forum, and you WILL see many examples of this taking place.

In fact you only have to go back through this thread alone to FIND and SEE many examples of WHAT I am talking about now.

I have been USING your words also here as just another example of this. Your words alone ARE sufficient EVIDENCE that is needed to PROVE this very FACT. You were aware that that is WHAT has been happening here, right?

However, If you think that it is possible to get past or through A BELIEF within a human being, or you just find a way to do it, then please let me KNOW HOW, also. It would be much appreciated.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:14 pm Only mediocre contrarianism - like every rebellious teenager.

If I am a "rebellious" teenager to you, then so be it.

Going against society's wrong doings is my fortitude.

'You', who make society, what it is, just do not like this nor even like to look at this.

Your ADD and selective answering of posts is getting in the way our discussion. Focus here:

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:05 pm But I do KNOW WHY I made the choice that I made.

OK! Then tell me why! That's all I am asking you.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:05 pm YOU just BELIEVE that I do NOT KNOW WHY.

You also BELIEVE that I can NOT provide the answer.

I don't believe or disbelieve anything. I am only watching you indulge in verbal masturbation instead of providing the answer.

"INCORRECT. I believe in free will. Because I know I have it. I can justify ALL of my choices THEREFORE I have free will. It is because you can't justify your choices is why I am doubting whether you have free will. It doesn't look like you have found it and claimed it yet."

I reread the conversations I have on forums, and copy and paste them into further points of reference for both self-reflection and the practical aspect of creating a book.

Upon rereading this "concept" you stated, I believe I may have reference a similar notion in such a thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24725&p=372979&hil ... sm#p372979

Free will fundamentally is creation with the morality of creation being determined by its "balance", or you may say "equilibrium", with the nature of being exhibited through natural law. Natural Law in turn, as the premise for all "directed movement" (or you may say "action"), gives precedence to moral laws such as the golden rule, recipricocity, etc. embodied in the abstracts of the "line, point, circle", "yin/yang", or even "Cross/Crucifixion" (as intersecting lines necessitating "synthesis" as a moral constant).

TimeSeeker wrote:
The difference in this case is that I am going to make you choose between water and water. Given the CHOICE of mathematical systems:
A. 1+1 = 2 (Decimal)
B. 1+1 = 10 (Binary)

They are both equivalent. The differences are merely symbolic. By Occam's razor a system with two digits (0 and 1) is far simpler than a system with 10 digits (0 to 9). So why has society CHOSEN B? Justify the choice.

Well ignoring that Mathematics is a historical and social construct that has evolved rather than been chosen and sticking to just the question I'd use Occam's razor and choose A. in that it reduces the number of symbols involved so is simpler.
p.s. Oh! I've just seen that you've said why has society chosen B, in a word Computers.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:00 am Well ignoring that Mathematics is a historical and social construct that has evolved rather than been chosen and sticking to just the question I'd use Occam's razor and choose A. in that it reduces the number of symbols involved so is simpler.
p.s. Oh! I've just seen that you've said why has society chosen B, in a word Computers.

But you can't ignore that. Because society is not an abstract thing. It's made up of people like yourself and myself. Somebody, somewhere decided (while taking history or legacy into account) that this is the system we will use because reason X,Y and Z.

My point is simply: When two options are theoretically equivalent - the very fact we've actually made a choice is evidence of values/preference/bias/subjectivity. The difference between A and B is merely symbolic.

True objectivity cannot make ANY choices because it has no personal preferences.

And so A and B are theoretically equivalent but not practically equivalent. We, society BELIEVE that option A is better because <insert reasons here for having chosen it>.

To choose means to know thyself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:26 pm "INCORRECT. I believe in free will. Because I know I have it. I can justify ALL of my choices THEREFORE I have free will. It is because you can't justify your choices is why I am doubting whether you have free will. It doesn't look like you have found it and claimed it yet."

I reread the conversations I have on forums, and copy and paste them into further points of reference for both self-reflection and the practical aspect of creating a book.

Upon rereading this "concept" you stated, I believe I may have reference a similar notion in such a thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24725&p=372979&hil ... sm#p372979

Free will fundamentally is creation with the morality of creation being determined by its "balance", or you may say "equilibrium", with the nature of being exhibited through natural law. Natural Law in turn, as the premise for all "directed movement" (or you may say "action"), gives precedence to moral laws such as the golden rule, recipricocity, etc. embodied in the abstracts of the "line, point, circle", "yin/yang", or even "Cross/Crucifixion" (as intersecting lines necessitating "synthesis" as a moral constant).

I scanned over that thread briefly. If by "determinism" you mean probabilistic and NOT absolutist forms of determinism - then I agree.

Anything that has probability p <> .5 is deterministic. By ergodic theory it will produce a convergent series.
Anything that has p=0.5 is dualistic. It will produce non-convergent series.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:34 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:26 pm "INCORRECT. I believe in free will. Because I know I have it. I can justify ALL of my choices THEREFORE I have free will. It is because you can't justify your choices is why I am doubting whether you have free will. It doesn't look like you have found it and claimed it yet."

I reread the conversations I have on forums, and copy and paste them into further points of reference for both self-reflection and the practical aspect of creating a book.

Upon rereading this "concept" you stated, I believe I may have reference a similar notion in such a thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24725&p=372979&hil ... sm#p372979

Free will fundamentally is creation with the morality of creation being determined by its "balance", or you may say "equilibrium", with the nature of being exhibited through natural law. Natural Law in turn, as the premise for all "directed movement" (or you may say "action"), gives precedence to moral laws such as the golden rule, recipricocity, etc. embodied in the abstracts of the "line, point, circle", "yin/yang", or even "Cross/Crucifixion" (as intersecting lines necessitating "synthesis" as a moral constant).

I scanned over that thread briefly. If by "determinism" you mean probabilistic and NOT absolutist forms of determinism - then I agree.

Anything that has probability p <> .5 is deterministic. By ergodic theory it will produce a convergent series.
Anything that has p=0.5 is dualistic. It will produce non-convergent series.

I half agree with your statement as probabilies are absolutes when left with the probability as a continuum to further probabilities. However you are right, and like I said before and will say many more times, we are dealing with the entropy of language in addressing this issue. This entropy is a legitimate paradox.

So we are left with an absolute determinism and a probabilistic determinism (when observing the probability as finite localized phenomenon).

In these respects there are two determinisms.

Yes it does leads to a convergent series, and a non convergent series as convergence and non convergence are dualistic directions.

Convergence, as self directed, takes on an intradimensional nature.

Non convergence, necessitating individuation as seperation, takes on an extradimensional nature.

We understand directed movement as both intradimensional and extradimensional.

Intradimensionality, as connection, necessitates unity and an absolute determinism with the probability effectively canceling itself out into unity.

Extradimensionality, as separation, necessitates units/multiplicity and a probabilistic determinism. The probability is a fractal. A fractal can be observed as an actuality and potentiality; hence is a foundation for not just relativity but empiricism as well (we can see this reflected in Aristolean metaphyisics).

This actual and potential nature of the fractal is reflected in probabililty. Where 25 percent and 1/4
may observe 25%/4 as a state of actualizing, in the respect it is the divisor and has a functional/moving nature, 1 and 75% are without form as potentility and are given form through the divisive nature of the actual.

The actual, and by actual we may use the terms directed movement or "action", acts as a divisor the the formless.

In a dual respect one actuality, x, may be divided by another actuality, y, where the actuality acts as the potential for another.

Considering both actuality and potentiality take on a relative directional nature as one locality/part/atom/etc. is directed towards another based upon its active status defined by its divisive nature and the other locality/part/atom/etc. takes on a receptive role negating its form in the respect it is non active.

However from a perspective of complete convergence, both x and y take on simultaneously roles of actuality and potentiality.

Another example may be:

For example looking at the statements x/y, 1/7 and 2/7.

X is the potential unity Y is moving towards with y as a divisor observing the actuality.

1 is potential unity. 2 also is a potential unity, that while 2 is not unified it represent as localized set of relation and acts as a unit. 1 may also be observed as a potential unit.

So potentiality exists as both unit and unity where the potential state of a locality/atom/unit is a further locality/atom/unit and unity in the respect The locality moves toward everything.



In these respects an absolute determinism as total convergence synonymous to unity is defined by an intradimensionalor self directed nature as 1, while a probabilistic determinism as total non convergence shows a continual individuation of parts (simultaneous multiplication and division) leading to a relativistic atomism under fractals.

Absolute determinism contains as an element probabilistic determinism, and probabilitistc determinism as an approximation of absolute determinism (due to multiplicity as unit being an approximation of unity as everything) is directed away from its nature towards absolute determinism as the potential state which defines it.


If this makes sense, I may have to reword somethings.

TimeSeeker wrote:But you can't ignore that. Because society is not an abstract thing. It's made up of people like yourself and myself. Somebody, somewhere decided (while taking history or legacy into account) that this is the system we will use because reason X,Y and Z.

My point is simply: When two options are theoretically equivalent - the very fact we've actually made a choice is evidence of values/preference/bias/subjectivity. The difference between A and B is merely symbolic. ...

I'd thought 'society' was a fairly abstract idea but I take your point and agree that there are reasons for why systems have been chosen but different types of societies. I'd also say psychology, physiology and even religious beliefs have played a part. But I'll have to re-read the whole thread as I thought Kant had pretty much nailed such things?

True objectivity cannot make ANY choices because it has no personal preferences. ...

No idea what 'true objectivity' is to be fair. For me Maths is tool for intra-subjectives to model an objectivity reality and it's historical development has been either just abstract play by mathematicians or driven by the need for concrete solutions to some problem or other with often some of the play turning out to be useful to model some future unthought of problem.

And so A and B are theoretically equivalent but not practically equivalent. We, society BELIEVE that option A is better because <insert reasons here for having chosen it>.

But A and B aren't equivalent, one has less symbols than the other?

To choose means to know thyself.

Or you could just be flipping a coin?

"Free will"

The ability to choose what's good, even before you know the difference between good and evil.(pace God punishing Adam and Eve for disobedience prior to knowing the difference between good and evil, as the story is told in the good book itself)

The creation of theologians as a means to exonerate the God of Abraham from the existence of evil. That's a fact.

Free will presupposes volition.

One cannot choose better unless they know of better.

One's choices are not free from influence.

One's ability to recognize all the choices available is not free from influence.

It is humanly impossible to make a mistake on purpose.

We all choose to do what we think is best at the time(for whatever reason), it is only after reality doesn't match our expectations that we realize and call it "a mistake".

The will is not free from influence... so what is it free from... why call it "free" if it is not?

creativesoul wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:42 am One's ability to recognize all the choices available is not free from influence.

It is humanly impossible to make a mistake on purpose.

We all choose to do what we think is best at the time(for whatever reason), it is only after reality doesn't match our expectations that we realize and call it "a mistake".

The will is not free from influence... so what is it free from... why call it "free" if it is not?

Firstly. Before we can even speak of 'free will' a choice must exist. 1 option is NOT a choice. So 2 or more options are required.
I don't think agency is required to influence you. Necessity is sufficient.

Here is a thought experiment: You are skydiving. Your primary parachute opens up partially. It looks fixable.

Choice A: Try fix it.
Choice B: Cut it away (risk losing a good parachute) and go for your backup which may bring its own set of problems.

You have a choice! Therefore - free will!
BUT you are on a time constraint. If you wait too long you WILL lose option B and by our definition of "free will" (2 or more option) you risk losing your "free will".

But it seems to me we actually have way more than 2 choices in front of us? Simply by asking this question: When do you commit to Plan B?

Exercise Option A for 5 seconds then B.
Exercise Option A for 10 seconds then B.
Exercise Option A for 15 seconds then B.

Do you have free will? Of course! You have at least 2 options!

Obviously we will appeal to the Lesser of Two Evils principles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of ... _principle

So only the epistemic problem remains: Which one is the lesser evil?

Timeseeker, do you know what "epistemic" means? Do you? Do you? Do you really?

Because I, for one, haven't got a fog in clue.

-1- wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:34 pm Timeseeker, do you know what "epistemic" means? Do you? Do you? Do you really?

Because I, for one, haven't got a fog in clue.

It's a word I have borrowed from philosophers which appears to have commonly understood meaning. It's not my language.

In my world (decision theory/systems/software/engineering) it's isomorphic to information. The mathematical kind.