Biological Will

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:40 pm

I'm also intrigued by the idea I planted in my own head about the possibility of Determinism being replaced by something superior, like Determinism entirely did to Free Will. I think if anywhere, such a thing would be at least born from Indeterminacy, to become who knows what.


one problem i have with the thesis of indeterminism is what i consider a negligible distinction between necessary and sufficient antecedent causes. the thesis maintains that if y followed x, x was the cause of y (necessarily), but that y need not result from the presence of x.

here i think indeterminists are confusing the fact that because logically alternate possibilities can be imagined to happen (z might follow x instead of y, next time), this therefore means that at time-1 there were two or more simultaneously existing futures. but this inference is made at time-2, post hoc, and is mistaken as a report of the conditions existent at time-1. but see there aren't ever two or more futures, only one future, the necessary result of what happens presently. the 'arrow-of-time' argument supports this position.

the indeterminist's position replaces a metaphysical truism with an observational idiosyncrasy. the same confusion exists in what is typically conceived of as 'chaos'. due to the inability to directly observe necessary causation, the absence of repetition, predictability and sequenced pattern is mistaken as an indication of a lack of causal order. another observational idiosyncrasy that is embedded in our ability to conceive of alternate outcomes before they happen. so for example, we observe two identical systems. in each system we change an initial condition at time-1, and then observe the extraordinary differences that result in the systems at time-2. now it would be implausible to say that 'order' did not pervade throughout each system uniformly simply because the systems are completely different. rather, at the moment of the initial changes, the systems were no longer identical and therefore cannot be compared to reach the verdict that complete order was lacking. 'aha!', says sil. instead you now have two different systems producing unique contingencies within the necessary causal conditions in which they exist.

simply said, 'chaos' is a perceptual phenomena, not an ontological phenomena.

nonetheless, philosophers love to tinker with the word chaos without the slightest inkling that they're talking nonsense.

in any case i'm not sure there is a third possibility somewhere between determinism and indeterminism. having ruled out indeterminism, i'd entertain the notion that determinism might function at a much more complex level than we are currently aware of. perhaps there are imperceptible forces that act causally on what is perceivable (poly-dimensional branes and whatever effecting each other), and even vice-versa, but i'd wager my very soul that causation is absolutely real, however it works. this of course excluding any substance dualism, as well. i've ruled agent causation out completely.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3616
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:13 pm

I believe in free will, not only for sentient animals like raccoons and ravens, but for nonlife forms too.
Sticks and stones can move around of their own accord if they like, it's just most of the time they choose not to.

every once in a while tables, chairs and other household items get antsy, and they do a little dance before rearranging themselves, usually when we're not looking so as not to disturb us, a phenomenon normally referred to as poltergeist.
People have mistaken this phenomenon for ghouls and ghosts moving things about, but that's not normally what is, the objects are just exercising their free will.

And whenever an object's behavior deviates from our expectations, like if it bounces higher or flies further than we thought it would, it's not a miscalculation on our part, that too is objects exercising their free will.

Scientific materialists had to admit the quantum world is partly free and so is the macroworld, spontaneity is just subtler and rarer in the macroworld.
everything is animate and alive on some level.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Biological Will

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:09 am

Right , it goes to reason.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7618
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:05 am

Gloominary wrote:every once in a while tables, chairs and other household items get antsy, and they do a little dance before rearranging themselves, usually when we're not looking so as not to disturb us, a phenomenon normally referred to as poltergeist.
People have mistaken this phenomenon for ghouls and ghosts moving things about, but that's not normally what is, the objects are just exercising their free will.

Now this discussion is finally getting somewhere. Progress.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:15 pm

promethean75 wrote:i've ruled agent causation out completely.

How unfortunate, because Agency is the very source of "Causation".

Is the universe and existence "caused" without subjective interpretation, without life present, without a person around the woods to hear the sound of trees falling down?

The universe doesn't need to be caused, hence why there are sufficient antecedents. Rather it is life, humanity specifically, that try to impose its own 'Cause' onto everything-else.


The "Beginning" of Life is no different than the "Beginning" of existence or the universe. It doesn't need to be.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Silhouette » Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:29 pm

The Dictionary wrote:Secular: not regarded as, pertaining or connected to religious.

The Philosopher wrote:"Hard-Determinism" = Secular Humanism = Post-Christianity = Abrahamism. It's The Bible, minus God.

The Philosopher wrote:1) You, and Silhouette, pretty much are Secularists. That means that "all causes come from previous causes & effects". So, "Determinism" suffers from Infinite Regress.
2) To me, the universe, space & time, is infinite, without beginning and end.
3) So it's not a contradiction to me. But to you and Sil, or other Hard-Determinists, it is.

The Philosopher wrote:If you believe there is a "Cause to Everything" (...) What is the Ultimate Cause? Creationism.

When you don't even need to do anything but quote what someone has said :lol:

What I have learned from The Philosopher:
Secular is its opposite, Abrahamism.
Believing in an infinite regress is a contradiction for some but not others.
If you believe in an infinite regress, you believe the regress has a beginning.

Uhhh <quivers> I feeel the wisdom flow throuughhh meeee. Teach me, Senpai!! Show me how I too can simply claim things!
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:30 am

You can play with your dictionary all you want. The reality on the ground is, "Secularists" are nothing more than a ruse. It shows in your logic, the arguments you've already presented, as "Determinists".

Christian, minus 'God', to the letter. You can't hide what you are forever.

Again, the "Protestant" movement and restoration, is a big joke of intellectualism. Protestants didn't win their war against Christianity. They lost. And you prove the case.


Slavery, for thousands of years, hasn't changed. That's why you'll never be free. You don't know how. And if you did know how, or even wanted to, you wouldn't have the courage to take the first step, let-alone the tenth or hundredth. Why pour Faith into the Faithless?

I'm preaching to the Choir though. The methods of Modern slavery are insidious. You will never think outside the box because that's how you've been raised. The first lesson of Philosophy should be about questioning the very system any human is born into. That's something you've never learned, or your ilk. Why do you participate on a Philosophy forum, when you can't do the basic math? I will wager to guess, ulterior motives. You were never interested in questioning the system that has led you to your 'Determinism'. You are only interested in becoming a more favorable and popular Advocate for it.



To follow-up on Promethean's recent "point". It's a matter of ideological investments. You, and he, simply benefit too much from believing in Determinism, so you cannot make any serious headway into an alternative as-if "Choice" were possible for you two, which you've thoroughly proved, that it's not. It's not your choice. So whose it, if not yours? I will repeat the basics of my argument. If it's about Choice then it's about Power. So, probably, it's about lacking the power (knowledge) to go against the system you advocate for.

You might want to think what it means to be "Determined" at this point, or where exactly this song comes from, God's loyal Subjects.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:30 pm

Again, the "Protestant" movement and restoration


I'm pretty sure that was a 'reformation', although I have worked with some protestants recently who did some fine restoration work on a house I'm doing a job at.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3616
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:01 pm

promethean75 wrote:I'm pretty sure that was a 'reformation', although I have worked with some protestants recently who did some fine restoration work on a house I'm doing a job at.

Don't question The Philosopher - he is above your paygrade and doesn't need to "play around with dictionaries" like us slaves. When you get as free as him you don't need to be restricted by reason, logic or sense - nevermind trivialities like vocabulary and meanings. If he wants to use "preaching to the Choir" to mean its opposite: as speaking to people who aren't already converted then, damn it, he can! The jig is up, he's uncovered the truth that we're Liberal shills paid by Hillary Clinton and the underground SJW NWO movement, seeking no truth, winning is all (so grim, so true, so real) - we should have been more questioning of our beliefs like he is with his unwavering piety to Free Will, instead of debating about legitimate flaws to our currently preferred respective positions that are open to reason and evidence to the contrary. I bet he's paid more than $0 by more than nobody at all to espouse his power, and I bet his fame is far more than none at all whatsoever. If we support a position it must be for emotional reasons rather than an active effort to avoid them in order to get at the truth independent of subjective desires, duh. If we were answering to him, like scientists do, we could be thinking bigger than universally and get to the specific particulars of why an Olympic athlete high jump over 8ft. Praise be to God, Amen.

A small side note:
promethean75 wrote:one problem i have with the thesis of indeterminism is what i consider a negligible distinction between necessary and sufficient antecedent causes. the thesis maintains that if y followed x, x was the cause of y (necessarily), but that y need not result from the presence of x.

What do you think of the proposition that it is sufficient to propose necessary antecedent causes, to take into account the problem of induction?

It's difficult to conceive of two or more simultaneous futures, especially since "the future" isn't so much a distinct thing in itself, but a set name for a collection of events - so more events would still count as the same singular future by that definition, just with more things happening in it. I'm not even a fan of the linear time model, at least not when it posits the present as an instant - when the present is experientially ongoing. The past and the future are more like subsets of the present, which is more unfolding unto itself than moving on from itself. As such, Determinism is a model of a "becoming" present rather than reliant on a past and future altogether separate from the present. The future can be imagined in the present as a set of possibilities that come, and the past experienced in the present as a memory of a set of realities that came before, but that's not what they are concretely - they are each a continuation of the present Continuous Experience. Causation requires Discrete Experience to mentally separate them, which just so happens to model this continuous flow better and better, at present extraordinarily well and on a trajectory to improve as scientific thinkers improve their Deterministic modelling. There isn't actually any causation or anything else to Continuous Experience, it's just existence in various flavours of consistency. The less consistent aspects can be modelled as changing more, relative to the more consistent aspects - their relative inconsistency in one way can be thought of as relative consistent in another. In turn, any inconsistencies here are modelled relative to more consistent inconsistencies - an example of this might be spacetime: space is consistent, velocity is a change in space over time i.e. inconsistent spatial location can be a consistent speed, and acceleration is a change in velocity over time i.e. inconsistent velocity can be a consistent acceleration. Just open up more dimensions to explain relative inconsistencies in terms of lower dimensions - that's how science has been working so far. It may all be a fictional story, but it models reality amazingly well - that's the sense in which causation is "real".

The causes are proposed as necessary, and it is empirically sufficient to approach knowledge in such a way. If there's any discrepancy, such as "z following x instead of y, next time", you refine the regression of modelling the inconsistency in terms of consistencies. What is "really" the case is neither chaos or order, it's continuity. But regardless of this, evidently the better we can order it, the better we can establish initial conditions and predict/manipulate it.

Thinking like this rules out Determinism or Indeterminism as the ultimate question, but Free Will was never on the table in the first place as it contains logical contradictions: e.g. being both causatively influenced by the world in order to make an informed decision on how to causatively effect it, whilst simultaneously not being causatively influenced by it as a free agent. Having your cake and eating it is the square circle of worldviews. Determinism or Indeterminism are on the table, but for Indeterminism to be anything more than merely "the gap filler" for what we can't currently model Deterministically with sufficient success, there needs to be a legitimate reason why there has to be a gap - or perhaps that a gap is necessary for a the "not-gap" to exist at all. Things like Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem come to mind. That's the kind of thing I have in mind for a kind of validity in Indeterminism, but it's all speculation at the moment.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:34 pm

If you want to give up, that's fine, Silhouette. It's okay to quit. Just don't ever feign an interest in philosophy. Because you don't have it.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Silhouette » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:18 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:If you want to give up, that's fine, Silhouette. It's okay to quit. Just don't ever feign an interest in philosophy. Because you don't have it.

Lead by example.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Biological Will

Postby Gloominary » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:10 pm

The religious/spiritual worldview (freedom) is nearly the opposite of the scientific worldview (determinism).

In the Abrahamic religions, by exercising his free will and rebelling against El, we're told man is responsible for bringing all the evil into the world.

The Greco-Romans had a similar worldview, with Prometheus (Lucifer) and his fire and Pandora (Eve) and her box.

In the Vedic religions, man, along with every other entity in the cosmos, is Shakti, Shiva or Vishnu and so omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and free, even free to delude ourselves/himself into believing we're/he's finite and our/his existence is determined by external forces he has little-no control over.

Such's their explanation for the origin of the cosmos, the supreme being under the delusion (maya) that he's not the supreme being, that he's just me, or you, when really he's subconsciously manifesting the cosmos and all that seemingly determines him.

Awakening from this delusion is associated with benevolence, bliss and divine powers in this life, and liberation (moksha) as opposed to reincarnation after death.
Last edited by Gloominary on Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Biological Will

Postby Gloominary » Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:39 pm

1. In the western religious worldview, God (infinite and good), and loosely by extension the ruling class (rich white or Jewish men), is responsible for all the good and man (finite and evil), and by extension the ruled, is responsible for all the evil.

2. In the scientific worldview, no one's responsible.

3. And in the antireligious or misotheistic worldview, God (infinite and evil), and by extension the ruling class (rich white or Jewish men), is responsible for all the evil and man (finite and good), and by extension the ruled, is responsible for all the good.

1. is conservative, 2. is libertarian, and 3. is progressive.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:32 pm

The problem with Abrahamism/Christianity/Secularism is that freedom is only offered through Jesus/God, at the price of your soul and absolute loyalty, with no room for Doubt. Traditionally, you are not allowed to doubt God/Abrahamism/Judæo-Christianity/Old Testament. This changed with the New Testament, and Protestant Reformation, but only prima facie, because the contradiction remained. Freedom, except you're a slave (to God's Will).

Secularism and Science-ism is no better. Modern Science is basically an extension of Protestant Christian Biblical interpretations.

The Big Bang = Creationism

Determinism = God's Pre-Determined Will, you cannot escape His Plan, His Control.


The sad and pathetic aspect of this, is when philosophers and "free-thinkers" come here under this guise, but they cannot think outside the common boundaries and limits, like Silhouette. God's Slaves, God's Children, Eternally. Most of humanity cannot, and would not want to anyway, think freely, or beyond the limits of common parlance. To do so, draws the ire of the slaves and the herd. Their representatives (Sil and Promethean) cannot tolerate a man, an individual, acting and thinking freely. Because a Free-Man is a threat to their world-view, and the system at large.

Lucifer is a threat to God, even though hypothetically, God is supposed to be "all-powerful", so why then is Lucifer/Satan/Devil a threat??? But this is amateur level religious-vs-philosophy debate.

The larger point is--Freedom is a threat to the slave-mass. The Owners will not tolerate the message being spread throughout the slave-populace. And the slaves will find it deeply, deeply unsettling, because it leads to conflict, chaos, and disruption of order. Freedom is a threat to Security and public peace.


The Irony is that the "Western World" and USA should be the beacon for Freedom in the world, as-is touted and accepted by most, but, even among the West and USA, it's obvious that the slave-mentality is dominant. So I bring up the repeated point: The Protestants capitulated to Christianity, and brought this Capitulation with them to the New World upon colonizing it. The White race never absolved this form of slavery, and, applied it to the New World, upon both the Native Indians who refused their 'education', and upon the Negro who obeyed and emulated, but never really cared nor understood the deepest implications of the system.

Freedom is a Pagan institution, the only means by which any form of 'freedom' could be had in a Modern and Post-Modern environment, thoroughly and completely outside the Abrahamic ideological foundation, oil and water.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:42 pm

When a man is Free, and has Free-Will, others will immediately begin to hate him. Most of humanity, especially now in Modernity, but it must have been so in the ages past as well, are 'Victims'. So a Free-Man represents Moral Agency and Character. He is responsible for himself and his own actions. But the rest of humanity, the slaves, are Victims, and so, are never responsible for themselves or anything they do. It's a difference of weak-spirituality (slave) versus strong-spirituality (master). The slave goes through life, looking to blame others, including God (or Satan), depending upon the interpretations. Rarely, or never, do these Victims blame themselves, or ever begin to take account of their own lives. They don't have the courage, stomach, or humility for it. It's easier to blame others, never yourself.

Silhouette and Prom should pay attention here.

Likewise, if other people cannot be blamed, then "The Past" must be blamed. Everything was "Determined" and there was no way around it. Mere excuses, but, they help aide and soothe the damaged mind. Easier that "it could not have been any other way" than it could have been another way --and-- it was your fault, due to your own physical, mental, and spiritual weakness. You lacked the Fortitude and Soul-power, to change your own life, or to make any degree of Choice.

The difference between a slave's Choice and a master's Choice is the same between that of a Child and that of an Adult. For the child, choices are limited and relegated, strictly controlled by adults, parents, authorities, and "the system" at large. The child grows up, but does he/she gain independence??? No, instead it is a child in the body of a 30 or 40 or 50 year old. The independence and individual were never gained, because it is hard-fought and hard-won. You don't merely "get" independence and freedom as a reward for growing older. You get independence and freedom from fighting for it. Because others want to deny you your freedom.




Because others (Silhouette and Promethean) want to deny you your freedom.

Again, it's about Power. So this thread can come full-circle back to the start. The Biological Will is always attempting to gain Power. And Power/Choice is necessarily linked to to Freedom.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 7:45 pm

Silhouette is the resentful type, full of Resentiment, "if I can't be free--then NOBODY CAN ever!!!"

The hungry soul pulls everybody down; the abundant and nourished soul pulls everybody up.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:05 am

c'mon, sil. We're outta here. that boy ain't right.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3616
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:45 am

@Urwrong

The problem with Abrahamism/Christianity/Secularism is that freedom is only offered through Jesus/God, at the price of your soul and absolute loyalty, with no room for Doubt. Traditionally, you are not allowed to doubt God/Abrahamism/Judæo-Christianity/Old Testament. This changed with the New Testament, and Protestant Reformation, but only prima facie, because the contradiction remained. Freedom, except you're a slave (to God's Will).

In Abrahamism, unlike scientism, we have free will.
We can choose to follow El and go to heaven or do what thou wilt and go to hell.
In Judaism, I don't think there is a hell, there's Gehenna or Sheol, which's more akin to Hades or Tartarus than it is to the Christian, or Muslim hell.

In the new testament, hell isn't well defined.
I take it to mean a place where you have eternal life and freedom to do as you please without El's intervention rather than as punishment, it could be better or worse than heaven, it could be subjective.
Interpreted this way, Abrahamism is a form of freedom.

Secularism and Science-ism is no better. Modern Science is basically an extension of Protestant Christian Biblical interpretations.

The Big Bang = Creationism

Determinism = God's Pre-Determined Will, you cannot escape His Plan, His Control.

There's no metaphysical freedom in scientism, but there is a kind of practical freedom.
You're free to do as you please within the confines of (neuro)physics, but you're not free to please as you please sort of speak.

The sad and pathetic aspect of this, is when philosophers and "free-thinkers" come here under this guise, but they cannot think outside the common boundaries and limits, like Silhouette. God's Slaves, God's Children, Eternally. Most of humanity cannot, and would not want to anyway, think freely, or beyond the limits of common parlance. To do so, draws the ire of the slaves and the herd. Their representatives (Sil and Promethean) cannot tolerate a man, an individual, acting and thinking freely. Because a Free-Man is a threat to their world-view, and the system at large.

Why do you think Silhouette and Promethean have forsaken their freedom?
I haven't read most of your exchange with them.

The larger point is--Freedom is a threat to the slave-mass. The Owners will not tolerate the message being spread throughout the slave-populace. And the slaves will find it deeply, deeply unsettling, because it leads to conflict, chaos, and disruption of order. Freedom is a threat to Security and public peace.

And what would a free system look like to you?
Like anarchocapitalism?
Why can't you be free and a Stirnerite egoist, anarchoindividualist or socialist?

The Irony is that the "Western World" and USA should be the beacon for Freedom in the world, as-is touted and accepted by most, but, even among the West and USA, it's obvious that the slave-mentality is dominant. So I bring up the repeated point: The Protestants capitulated to Christianity, and brought this Capitulation with them to the New World upon colonizing it. The White race never absolved this form of slavery, and, applied it to the New World, upon both the Native Indians who refused their 'education', and upon the Negro who obeyed and emulated, but never really cared nor understood the deepest implications of the system.

In what way are Stirnerite egoism, anarchoindividualism, socialism and Christianity necessarily the same?

Freedom is a Pagan institution, the only means by which any form of 'freedom' could be had in a Modern and Post-Modern environment, thoroughly and completely outside the Abrahamic ideological foundation, oil and water.

Pagans, or non-Abrahamic theists believed all sorts of things, I think at one time all or many pagan Babylonians believed man was created to slave for the Gods, so I don't equate paganism with freedom, but then earlier I was associating the religious/spiritual worldview with freedom, which was admittedly a misassociation.
I think some schools of Hinduism may be the closest man has come to devising a perfectly free metaphysics, that is if you do away with caste.
Because in Hinduism, everyone is God, the world is our playground.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:08 am

Long ago, I had countless arguments against Religious types. They always ended-up the same.

When a person is pushed into a corner, concerning their beliefs, they always reduce things down to an absurd proposition and burden-of-proof. They make the burden-of-proof impossible. When arguing against Silhouette and Promethean, they did the same thing. I asked them, multiple times, several times, then a dozen times, give me on example of an act of freedom. Just one, that demonstrates whether a human, an animal, an organism, a rock, a gust of wind, anything, that gives evidence for freedom. They don't do this, even though a small child can. Lots of people, everybody really, has an intuitive sense of freedom. They know when they are tied-up, restricted, and cannot move, that they are not free. But when they are able to move, they are 'free', in the specific context of comparing the two. Promethean did a little better than Silhouette, a little braver, because Promethean at least admitted that some humans are more capable (Freer) than others.

Some humans can jump 8 feet high. Some humans can walk on tight-ropes. Some humans can build boats. Some humans can run entire Nations or armies.

The bottom-line is, they know what 'Free' means, but are unwilling to apply it to a specific sense-of-things, actually the most generalized sense-of-things. They contend that it is impossible to "Escape causality" or that "Everything is determined". Thus, no action, no thought, there is no possibility for 'freedom' in their minds. I boxed them into their contradictions multiple times, but everytime, it's the same fallacy. They move the goal-posts. Thus they simply believe, there is no action, no thought, or nothing at all, that can demonstrate or symbolize 'Freedom' in the core, simplest, universal sense. So they have it backward.

You are 'free' to do, think, and believe....but none of it demonstrates "real freedom", which is impossible to them. Thus any attempt to prove otherwise, to them, is futile.


The same applies to defining any Absolute Thing, like God. If you press a religious mind enough, then the same result, "God" is put into a place of logical impossibility, by which the meaning cannot be defined. So too have Silhouette and Promethean done the same with "Freedom". It's the same pattern of (fallacious) rationalization. It's Irrational.


Then I pointed-out that humans greatest achievements keep proving people wrong. Humans used to believe the Sun and planets rotated around Earth. They were proved wrong. Humans used to believe we could never fly. They were proved wrong. Humans used to believe we could never travel to the Moon or Mars. They were proved wrong. But you can never appease Naysayers and Negative-minded people like Silhouette and Promethean. Because even if rare individuals, Excellent and Noble types, keep proving them wrong, they merely move the goalposts again, and again, and again.

Thus you should never want to appease such people, and, I don't think Free-Men really care about their type of poor thought process anyway.


A Free-Man is going to do whatever he wants, think whatever he wants, believe whatever he wants, and he will prove everybody wrong. Will they accept it? Will they recognize such? Will they care? No, because the Enthralled are Blind. They cannot see what is in front of their face. And so when they are proved wrong, they never change their mind, they merely change the parameters to impossible. That way they are never humiliated by what they-themselves could never do, or hope to do, and then they don't have to compare themselves to a Free-Man. Because that would be too humiliating.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:25 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Long ago, I had countless arguments against Religious types. They always ended-up the same.

When a person is pushed into a corner, concerning their beliefs, they always reduce things down to an absurd proposition and burden-of-proof. They make the burden-of-proof impossible. When arguing against Silhouette and Promethean, they did the same thing. I asked them, multiple times, several times, then a dozen times, give me on example of an act of freedom. Just one, that demonstrates whether a human, an animal, an organism, a rock, a gust of wind, anything, that gives evidence for freedom. They don't do this, even though a small child can. Lots of people, everybody really, has an intuitive sense of freedom. They know when they are tied-up, restricted, and cannot move, that they are not free. But when they are able to move, they are 'free', in the specific context of comparing the two. Promethean did a little better than Silhouette, a little braver, because Promethean at least admitted that some humans are more capable (Freer) than others.

Some humans can jump 8 feet high. Some humans can walk on tight-ropes. Some humans can build boats. Some humans can run entire Nations or armies.

The bottom-line is, they know what 'Free' means, but are unwilling to apply it to a specific sense-of-things, actually the most generalized sense-of-things. They contend that it is impossible to "Escape causality" or that "Everything is determined". Thus, no action, no thought, there is no possibility for 'freedom' in their minds. I boxed them into their contradictions multiple times, but everytime, it's the same fallacy. They move the goal-posts. Thus they simply believe, there is no action, no thought, or nothing at all, that can demonstrate or symbolize 'Freedom' in the core, simplest, universal sense. So they have it backward.

You are 'free' to do, think, and believe....but none of it demonstrates "real freedom", which is impossible to them. Thus any attempt to prove otherwise, to them, is futile.


The same applies to defining any Absolute Thing, like God. If you press a religious mind enough, then the same result, "God" is put into a place of logical impossibility, by which the meaning cannot be defined. So too have Silhouette and Promethean done the same with "Freedom". It's the same pattern of (fallacious) rationalization. It's Irrational.


Then I pointed-out that humans greatest achievements keep proving people wrong. Humans used to believe the Sun and planets rotated around Earth. They were proved wrong. Humans used to believe we could never fly. They were proved wrong. Humans used to believe we could never travel to the Moon or Mars. They were proved wrong. But you can never appease Naysayers and Negative-minded people like Silhouette and Promethean. Because even if rare individuals, Excellent and Noble types, keep proving them wrong, they merely move the goalposts again, and again, and again.

Thus you should never want to appease such people, and, I don't think Free-Men really care about their type of poor thought process anyway.


A Free-Man is going to do whatever he wants, think whatever he wants, believe whatever he wants, and he will prove everybody wrong. Will they accept it? Will they recognize such? Will they care? No, because the Enthralled are Blind. They cannot see what is in front of their face. And so when they are proved wrong, they never change their mind, they merely change the parameters to impossible. That way they are never humiliated by what they-themselves could never do, or hope to do, and then they don't have to compare themselves to a Free-Man. Because that would be too humiliating.



Just as Sauwelles did not comment on my suggestion that to will to power is relative to the power to will, as a sensible search for balance. He has not appeared since.

Of course contexts do change, as identifiable relations do not.



As here:


"one problem i have with the thesis of indeterminism is what i consider a negligible distinction between necessary and sufficient antecedent causes"

You mean by this , that they are integrable to support a minimum of detrimental effect on free will, to over come it.(determinism within it's own sense) ?

The point of stability does however work on the preferred primal network of sensation-perception in res.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7618
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:43 am

Wait wait wait hold up. Y'all think saully or myself would stop posting at a forum because of being stumped by someone (urwrong and meno in this case)?

damn! Y'all niggas got ballz!
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3616
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:49 am

Ya'wll, honey, divisiveness ain't be no trouble my mind with, who's nuff, why this?


"What happens within reality has no bearing on the actual existence of reality
And so had I never evolved or had you died before now then reality would be entirely unaffected by either of these alternative events
Anything possible can happen even if it never does but no single event / events can eliminate reality itself - that is forever impossible"

Chile', how can You separate reality from within from it's self to without, as has been a well trodden road , per existence?

That road was post expressionist signal that has lost it's signature post ww2. , at least in the old world.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7618
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Biological Will

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:00 am

@Urwrong

When a man is Free, and has Free-Will, others will immediately begin to hate him. Most of humanity, especially now in Modernity, but it must have been so in the ages past as well, are 'Victims'. So a Free-Man represents Moral Agency and Character. He is responsible for himself and his own actions. But the rest of humanity, the slaves, are Victims, and so, are never responsible for themselves or anything they do. It's a difference of weak-spirituality (slave) versus strong-spirituality (master). The slave goes through life, looking to blame others, including God (or Satan), depending upon the interpretations. Rarely, or never, do these Victims blame themselves, or ever begin to take account of their own lives. They don't have the courage, stomach, or humility for it. It's easier to blame others, never yourself.

What's a freeman?
A libertine, Stirnerite egoist, Nietzschean, bohemian, beatnik or existentialist?
A Marquis de Sade, Lord Byron, Jack Kerouac, Jim Morrison or John Paul Sartre?
Someone who acknowledges and exercises their freewill, someone who lives life to its fullest, someone who dares to be different and think outside the box?
One could be a determinist and still live life to its fullest and dare to be and think different.

Silhouette and Prom should pay attention here.

Likewise, if other people cannot be blamed, then "The Past" must be blamed. Everything was "Determined" and there was no way around it. Mere excuses, but, they help aide and soothe the damaged mind. Easier that "it could not have been any other way" than it could have been another way --and-- it was your fault, due to your own physical, mental, and spiritual weakness. You lacked the Fortitude and Soul-power, to change your own life, or to make any degree of Choice.

The difference between a slave's Choice and a master's Choice is the same between that of a Child and that of an Adult. For the child, choices are limited and relegated, strictly controlled by adults, parents, authorities, and "the system" at large. The child grows up, but does he/she gain independence??? No, instead it is a child in the body of a 30 or 40 or 50 year old. The independence and individual were never gained, because it is hard-fought and hard-won. You don't merely "get" independence and freedom as a reward for growing older. You get independence and freedom from fighting for it. Because others want to deny you your freedom.

While I'm not a strict determinist, I don't think it's self-refuting, it's a matter of opinion, which could be said about many, most, if not all philosophical positions especially.
Why do you think it's self-refuting?
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Biological Will

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:06 am

Promethean75 wrote:Ya'wll, honey, divisiveness ain't be no trouble my mind with, who's nuff, why this?


"What happens within reality has no bearing on the actual existence of reality
And so had I never evolved or had you died before now then reality would be entirely unaffected by either of these alternative events
Anything possible can happen even if it never does but no single event / events can eliminate reality itself - that is forever impossible"

Chile', how can You separate reality from within from it's self to without, as has been a well trodden road , per existence?

That road was post expressionist signal that has lost it's signature post ww2. , at least in the old world.



A casual relation within can make a mountain of difference even if absolutely non coincidental.

Well, that's is arguable, almost till eternity minus one scintilla of difference.

So as always caught in an uncomfortable middle.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7618
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:48 am

A Free-Man is a Philosopher, somebody who is not bound by the same rules and parameters as others. Surely Fate, Destiny, and "Determinism" applies to you, but not to everybody. There are rare types who break all boundaries, limitations, and expectations. That is how you know a person is free. People see Free-Men but they don't necessarily understand what it is they're witnessing. Gravity applies to you, on Earth, but Gravity does not apply to Astronauts who achieved exiting Earth's atmosphere and field. The 'Rules' don't apply to everybody. Some are beyond them.

For everybody else, you remain 'Determined'. But the exceptional ones are Un-Determined. What does it mean to be Un-determined? Good question, but we can't seem to count on people here for answers, most a pity.

It means you're Unbound. Philosophically, it means you can begin to think for yourself: Self-Autonomy. Anarchy has nothing to do with it. If a Free-Man wants to impose His will upon society, then it will be in His own image. He is responsible for it, after all.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]