Biological Will

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

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 4:34 pm

Good lecture. Believe me I know the clown part. It is strictly the tendency to be truthful that is always having the comical effect on people who believe in the moral righteousness of the State. Most of my family is that way. You can't rely on such people for anything at all Im afraid. Mice. You can't blame them for being weak. But indeed the criminal justice system could, under very intelligent hands, be transformed to something that doesn't subvert a mans self-valuing - but this requires vey harsh, Dostoyevskian psychology.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Sun May 26, 2019 4:43 pm

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun May 26, 2019 5:25 pm

I don't know if you've read this thread but you should, concerning how these Determinism v Free-Will arguments have progressed:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=194003


I'll simply define "Free-Will" in my own words briefly, so that my position is not misunderstood. "Will" means desire, Want, and the biological need of any-and-all organisms. Thus Will is a product of biology. Non-living things do not have a "Will". Therefore existence or "The Universe" cannot have a Will (this runs against the Judæo-Christian narrative), except wherein only living-things are intended to comprise "The Universe". This observation is usually conflated, even in the "Deterministic" case, in which as you say, is Anthropomorphic. It is Anthropomorphic because "Want" is extended to non-living things. So the cause of Elemental forces, Physics, non-living things are reversed, to say that "all things are caused", which is then mixed up with the "Want" (Will) of all things.

Outside Biology though, non-living things do not have a "Want", and therefore do not have a will, and therefore the Anthropomorphizing of Determinism, is a logical fallacy. It's invalid.


Therefore, again to conclude, the "Causes" of one thing (non-living physical compositions, chemicals, elements, beings, things) , are not the "Causes" of another (biological life).

If Silhouette were paying attention, this would mean that he, and you, must both reconcile how the "Determinism/Causation" of elemental forces (Physics) are the same both within and without Organic life ...which is why I can compare the "freedom of a rock" to the "freedom of this or that person".


Intuition is easier. If a person is "dumb as a rock" then the implication is less free than others.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 5:28 pm

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0WJlPuchytm

Well I think we can get a long way in designing such a morality.
The first step would be the acknowledge that it has to literally apply to and formally also be consented to by all humans.

But I think we can get there if we define satisfaction first, as "that to which toward a person gravitates" or some other wording to the same stoic effect.
This avoids defining satisfaction and purpose in terms of a pre established objective value. (after all that value depends on the nature of the subject)
A morality could only mean a path to guarantee that everyone is perpetually free to satisfaction. He or she can be satisfied at any given time. But satisfied of what? What kind of thirst are we talking about here?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 5:32 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:I don't know if you've read this thread but you should, concerning how these Determinism v Free-Will arguments have progressed:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=194003


I'll simply define "Free-Will" in my own words briefly, so that my position is not misunderstood. "Will" means desire, Want, and the biological need of any-and-all organisms. Thus Will is a product of biology. Non-living things do not have a "Will". Therefore existence or "The Universe" cannot have a Will (this runs against the Judæo-Christian narrative), except wherein only living-things are intended to comprise "The Universe". This observation is usually conflated, even in the "Deterministic" case, in which as you say, is Anthropomorphic. It is Anthropomorphic because "Want" is extended to non-living things. So the cause of Elemental forces, Physics, non-living things are reversed, to say that "all things are caused", which is then mixed up with the "Want" (Will) of all things.

Outside Biology though, non-living things do not have a "Want", and therefore do not have a will, and therefore the Anthropomorphizing of Determinism, is a logical fallacy. It's invalid.


Therefore, again to conclude, the "Causes" of one thing (non-living physical compositions, chemicals, elements, beings, things) , are not the "Causes" of another (biological life).

If Silhouette were paying attention, this would mean that he, and you, must both reconcile how the "Determinism/Causation" of elemental forces (Physics) are the same both within and without Organic life ...which is why I can compare the "freedom of a rock" to the "freedom of this or that person".


Intuition is easier. If a person is "dumb as a rock" then the implication is less free than others.

But then if non living things are excluded, do the examples of fire, water and rocks really count for anything with regard to freedom? Are we discussing free will in terms of other freedoms than those of the will?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 5:33 pm

On the "great criminal" from Nietzsche, he himself of course aspired to be the greatest criminal of all. The philosopher is irreducible to the law, because he produces a stronger one - the establishment of law as a primordial crime. That would be caused by very few other causes than those that lie within oneself. The founding fathers were the only truly free Americans.
Last edited by Jakob on Sun May 26, 2019 5:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun May 26, 2019 5:34 pm

Concerning Ability,

Silhouette and I argued on this point for probably a dozen pages worth of the thread.


I completely disagree. "Freedom" is a product of ability and complexity. Thus the more ability and complexity an organism has, the more Evolved it is claimed to be, the more intelligent it is claimed to be, and therefore the 'freer' it is claimed to be. One person who is "most-capable" would be freest, in the sense of choices, options, and a general standard-of-living.

Your counter-argument probably would be, unless I'm mistaken, that "any freedom" any person could have, whether simple or complex, must always abide by (General) Causality. And this was Silhouette's consistent argument as well. My response to him, and now to you, is the same. What then is "Causality", what is the process exactly, except a backward-looking justification for events and processes.

Any person, any human, any intelligent life form, crosses a phenomenon that it cannot understand, but desires to recognize (and memorize), and so studies it. Even babies and infants do this. All cognizant life-forms do it. Organisms simply interact with environments. An organism does not know many aspects of "its own" environment. Even in the most developed/evolved case, a smart human, will go through life encountering unknown situations, unknown people, and unknown environments. And so the cognizant process is one that seeks-to-understand, by looking for 'Causes'.

But it does so after-the-fact, after the "Unknown" is already admitted to. So seeking-causes is a response, to unknowns. This is why I repeatedly argued against Sil that Determinism v Free-Will is Epistemological. If you don't know the causes of the things or phenomena you refer to, then you can't thereby infer that they are "Determined", more-so when people already Anthropomorphize Determinism, because it's then a double-error.

Logically, Determinism must only refer to "known causes", otherwise such causes would be un-determined.


And, in my opinion, that is what "Un-determined" means anyway ...unknown-causes.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 5:39 pm

What then is "Causality", what is the process exactly, except a backward-looking justification for events and processes.

Yeah this is my ontological position as well.
Causality is a selective narrative inserted into the past based on non-universal observations in the present. If someone has green eyes and the father also has green eyes you can see a causal strain. But if a green eyed man and a blue eyed woman are sitting before you you wouldn't know what colour the eyes of their child was going to be.

Science consists of that which can be extracted from the past so as to be projected on to the future. That is very little in effect, otherwise we would have not be in as much confusion and trouble as a knowing species. Causality is also a morality, a selection of phenomena to suit the premise that it should all be chronologically ordained.
Last edited by Jakob on Sun May 26, 2019 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun May 26, 2019 5:42 pm

Jakob wrote:But then if non living things are excluded, do the examples of fire, water and rocks really count for anything with regard to freedom? Are we discussing free will in terms of other freedoms than those of the will?

It could very well be a matter of description.

And the 'freedom' of one person, is that of a rock, and the freedom of another person, is that of wind/air.


Why are some people freer than others? If it is a matter of intelligence/ability, then this is why one who is unintelligent/slow would be "thick-headed" or "retarded", dull.

Some people can move around freely, whereas others cannot. Some people can 'think' freely, whereas others cannot.


However all the "causes" which lead one person to one state of greater freedom must be compared to the causes which led another person to a state of lesser freedom.

In the case of my other thread, I introduced to Sil (but he could not advance the conversation far enough), is it matter of Nature or Nurture? Can "slow" children be nurtured to a state of greater freedom, or is it a waste of time, energy, and focus? Or a better question, to what degree can education or nurturing be used to provide choice (or training) to a child, that would increase his/her freedom?

How is freedom then any different from "Privilege"? And if Freedom pertains to Privilege, then is Freedom also not a factor of Power, and Control, and Choice?


This would be the part where "Free-Will" is a matter of Society (politics), not merely the individual.

In the other thread, I categorized types of freedom:
1) Physical Freedom (mobility)
2) Political Freedom (society v individual)
3) Pathological Freedom (capacity to think and choose)
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 5:48 pm

So what does a truly free man (also for woman) do with his freedom?

How can we recognize the free type?


pondering:

In a sense it is freeing to believe in causality entirely as one can no longer doubt oneself.
If one believes one is free, that means that whatever one is doing is apparently ones free will, therefore one should keep on doing it.
This is at least a treacherous possibility that could emerge in an unfree person.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 5:55 pm

So within the deterministic system and with this running definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, not counting throwing dice, the insane person would be relatively the freest, as he isn't responding to consequences.
That can also mean that the most stubborn person is the freest.
This ties into the idea of resistance as the kernel of free will.

Resistance is understood as the condition to causality.
If there weren't resistances, there could be no discernible cause and effect, but only a continuous flow of some no-thingness or whatever.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 6:00 pm

Why "The resistance" if it is smart always nonsensicalizes the ruling order. Whatever dominion isn't serious can't withstand being nonsensicalized. Compare that to Trump who won by being nonsensicalized and responding enthusiastically, that is a great freedom. Thats why I compare him to Lincoln, who acted like Macchiavelli in order to set the definitive moral precedent of humanity; habeas corpus. Trump acted like a silly person to save the world from annihilation and worser things. But this will cause some riot.
Hear hear.

Thats when you really know an effect is going to happen. Rage is the easiest effect to predict; therefore it is the monad.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 6:03 pm

Someone still needs to surpass The Shawshank Redemption.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 6:04 pm

Deterministic philosophy is like Wing Chun: if the way is free we go forward.

(edit I was going to judge that but Wing Chun is still elegantly effective where it matters)

And Ive seen people who thought they were the freest get caught and lost. There is always more than you can discern. I thought that this ws an argument against determinism but in practice it speaks for it. If freedom is set, rather than as a given, as a value, then one can use all that is determined, known and unknown, to actually act like a free agent. If it is seen as a given, then this brings, ironically, a heavy responsibility. And alternately, a furious ecstasy - the master of the temple versus the Maenad.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Artimas » Sun May 26, 2019 6:38 pm

Jakob wrote:Deterministic philosophy is like Wing Chun: if the way is free we go forward.

(edit I was going to judge that but Wing Chun is still elegantly effective where it matters)

And Ive seen people who thought they were the freest get caught and lost. There is always more than you can discern. I thought that this ws an argument against determinism but in practice it speaks for it. If freedom is set, rather than as a given, as a value, then one can use all that is determined, known and unknown, to actually act like a free agent. If it is seen as a given, then this brings, ironically, a heavy responsibility. And alternately, a furious ecstasy - the master of the temple versus the Maenad.


This is precisely what it is, determinism determines itself free. That’s what trial and error and truth from that trial and error, is. Determinism is determining itself free by options and complexity. So it would seem, that is what wisdom is and the pursuit of it.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 7:23 pm

determinism determines itself free.

ImageImage
ImageImage
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Artimas » Sun May 26, 2019 7:42 pm

Jakob wrote:
determinism determines itself free.

ImageImage
ImageImage


LOL, the red coats with cars, that’s one way to depict it. We’re definitely moving on up, but the opposite can also happen if man doesn’t take responsibility for the individual identity/self. We can also revert back to nothing and consciousness to restart from the beginning.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Sun May 26, 2019 7:57 pm

Yes, that is all too easy.

But where are we going?

I believe freedom needs to be guaranteed by numbers. And I think that people like us should have an organization. I don't see another way of meaning anything world historically in a capitalistic world but to act as a kind of phenomenon that co-determines the whole order.

If practicality of the idea is considered I never waver from the idea that organization in terms of philosophy and specifically in terms of my particular environment of it, is the only option. I think that is ultimately what Plato left us with, considering the world that came of the idea of the ideal. The philosopher may just knoow best of all how little he knows, but that is still sufficient to speculate with authority on other matters, and thus be of vital importance.

Im sick and tired of all this marginal shit were supposed to represent. Ive turned myself into a troll too many times just crashing like the waves on the blunt inability of philosophers to organize, but thats what needs to happen before the elections beyond the coming one.

The ideal of reason must prevail.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Artimas » Sun May 26, 2019 8:02 pm

Jakob wrote:Yes, that is all too easy.

But where are we going?

I believe freedom needs to be guaranteed by numbers. And I think that people like us should have an organization. I don't see another way of meaning anything world historically in a capitalistic world but to act as a kind of phenomenon that co-determines the whole order.

If practicality of the idea is considered I never waver from the idea that organization in terms of philosophy and specifically in terms of my particular environment of it, is the only option. I think that is ultimately what Plato left us with, considering the world that came of the idea of the ideal. The philosopher may just knoow best of all how little he knows, but that is still sufficient to speculate with authority on other matters, and thus be of vital importance.

Im sick and tired of all this marginal shit were supposed to represent. Ive turned myself into a troll too many times just crashing like the waves on the blunt inability for philosophers to organize, but thats what needs to happen before the elections beyond the coming one.


I am with you, I advocate organization as well. We know little but can also see what one may or can know/understand later on, if collectively aligned, which is why we need organizing. To progress quick and to the best of our ability. Bees build hives with a colony, not a single bee. We function similarly, then people like to say “we can’t replicate the pyramids”, in a collective state we could.

We can see the future but until organized, the possibilities remain somewhat confined to now, until we collectively function and choose a path for good. One that is not self destruction I mean.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Biological Will

Postby Silhouette » Fri May 31, 2019 7:29 pm

promethean75 wrote:you might have missed sil's earlier point, which is now more pertinent than ever for this thread.
Silhouette wrote:The people insisting it exists are simply defining "free" incompletely, such as "a higher quantity of known and possible options = more freedom", when either way it's all just as subject to physics - including the decision making process itself. Therefore "free" is the wrong word, no matter how valid it is to say that some things have more choices than others.

In spite of your best (and laudible!) efforts, I think my pertinent summary of all the "talking past each other" that has been going on, still continues regardless.

It's possible that the distinction I highlighted simply hasn't been considered, if it has been noticed at all - that people have resolved simply to continue to talk about only what they want to talk about.
It's possible that the distinction I highlighted has been considered, and the fallacious "Motte and Bailey" strategy has been adopted as follows: "I acknowledge Silhouette's point, however you cannot deny that freedom is a term that's used to describe a higher quantity of known and possible options, therefore Silhouette's point is invalid". The method of this fallacy is to challenge my point with "the bailey", and when called out they retreat to their point "the motte", which nobody has been disputing in the first place, demand that that cannot be disputed and therefore they are right, and by association (another fallacy) with me as the one who challenges them as an opponent to their point, I am perceived as wrong. It's probable that, if this is the case, it's not even a conscious line of "reasoning". The ego can be a tricky thing to someone who isn't constantly trying to catch it performing its protective gymnastics such as myself.

This reminds me of another point I made on a different thread:

Silhouette wrote:There seem to be conflicting interpretations of truth, or value - which I distinguish as either truth or utility.

The way to truth is to figure out how things are regardless of what anyone thinks or feels - zero personal agenda, attempting to eliminate all bias and mixing up your findings with the findings of others to see what they all have in common. The so-called "Objective" approach.
The way to utility is to figure out what is most valuable to yourself - like you are recommending in your post. Learn the truth of who you are in relation to the world, use your biases to your advantage and self-actualise to the max. One might call this the "Subjective" approach.

Objective truth has zero value if you are taking the subjective path to change your power for the better for you, because they are opposite and mutually exclusive in their ideal forms, methodologically speaking.
But subjective truth (truth "to you") has zero value if you are taking the objective path to get to answers that hold up better overall than ways proposed by wishful thinkers with an agenda.

This is the difference between intellectuals like Sam Harris and self-help gurus like Jordan Peterson. You might broadly associate the objective path with cooperative behaviour and the subjective path with competitive behaviour, perhaps even with the analytic versus continental schools of philosophy respectively.
Which one holds value depends on what you're after.
It makes sense, then, how the subjectively motivated tend towards the wishful thinking of Free Will and how it can seem true "to you" regardless of what empirical testing and logic without fallacy will lead you to, which will be Determinism.

I would hazard a guess that this whole "flood of active "Free Will" threads recently" that I mention later in that same post, is a result of these differing approaches to "truth". The ones who want only to feel empowered side with Free Will, and the ones who are interested in reality independent of wishful subjective thinking side with Determinism. Incidentally this is all covered in my "Experientialism" that distinguishes between utility and truth.

It would be the more "advanced" question, philosophically, to debate which of these approaches is more valid - if any at all! However, the predicted response will be the Nietzschean "This world is the will to power—and nothing besides!" from the worshippers of utility and "whether either of these approaches is valid at all" from the worshippers of truth. And for any retards it will be to simply repeat their same points about how I am wrong and why they think this is, as if they're not reiterated it a thousand times and as if I've not already covered it a thousand times (but like I said, either only being interested in their own point, or "Motte and Bailey"): the fallacy of "Proof by Assertion".

Another more "advanced" question would be how to address this divide, however the utility zealots will simply power past the question to drive home their own interests and points regardless - answering the question perfectly through their actions: that it cannot be addressed and the antagonism will remain.

But happily, the law of free speech is proven by a lack of resolution, and supports the perpetual thesis vs. antithesis dialectic, with only the geniuses looking past the current version to form a new synthesis that becomes the new thesis, and the loop is in fact never escaped at all.

Evolutionarily speaking, it is likely that the two approaches are modern manifestations of the strategists and the warriors: the ones who figure out how to win the fight and the ones who carry out the strategy (provided they subscribe to its sense). These days, with local peace and a lack of enemies, the fighters turn against the sense of the strategists who most threaten them, and fight a dumb war out of a compulsion towards conflict, and the strategists lose hope of any smartness and a dissipation of conflict ever being actioned. That's how u end up with reality TV presidents championing the dumb but entertainingly stimulating war. Instead of anyone actually smart, pick someone dumb who doesn't know they're dumb nor do the dumb, because their idea of smart is creating conflicts for the sake of having something to plough through by their dumb definition of smart.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:09 am

I would hazard a guess that this whole "flood of active "Free Will" threads recently" that I mention later in that same post, is a result of these differing approaches to "truth". The ones who want only to feel empowered side with Free Will, and the ones who are interested in reality independent of wishful subjective thinking side with Determinism.


well put. the difficult part is distinguishing the two types of people who believe in freewill. there is the type that is truly motivated by the pursuit of truth but who has, presently, been unable to understand how and why the theory is nonsense. the other type is a little more complex. it could be that they are able to grasp the truth of determinism but something keeps 'over-riding' their complete submission to it... and this is where we start forming theories about the disposition of such people. now i'm not one to ever claim the 'sub-consciousness' is accessible to real examination; it's rather a by-product of a notoriously confused concept used (and abused) philosophically... the 'consciousness'... (why isn't there a sub-sub-consciousness, and a sub-sub-sub-consciousness, too?). however, i do believe that while there is no such intentional psychic structure guiding or 'controlling' what 'comes to the surface' of conscious thought - with the exception of instinct... but instinct is unintentional automated reflex - there can be certain patterns of ideas that when kept and practiced over long periods of time, become cognitively habitual because they serve to support more immediate and intentional directives. so for example, if i'm a very angry and dissatisfied person, i'm going to want to believe that this is because something isn't 'right', or what it should be, out in the world (rather than looking inward and questioning my own constitution). i'm going to want to blame and incriminate... and for that, i need the theory of freewill. now most people are in such a state - very dissatisfied with something or other - and it would be a terrifying thought that would shake a person to their core, that their dissatisfaction is instead a result of their own weakness and/or naivety. this is one of the origins of ressentiment (and resentment), but more so the first because it contains a special element not present in the second.

the logical order runs like this: first, there is no teleology in nature. no categorical imperative for any action. no 'right' or 'wrong' (only as hypothetical imperative... which is different). as such, anyone who does not understand this first and foremost is going to build a worldview that will lead directly to superfluous disappointment. btw i'm a nihilist if you don't know [struts]... so i'm giving you exclusive coverage from a hawk's eye view how this plays out in most people. so without this critically important first admission, people naturally begin to both expect nature and the world to be a certain way, and then become angered when it is not. next they set out to enforce what they think is 'right', find resistance, and then become morally offended. in order to sustain this feeling of ressentiment, they need to believe, first, that they are 'right' (when they are not), and that what they are right about is accessible to everyone else (when it is not, on account of the inherent problems of language). but most importantly, they need to believe that others can freely choose to agree with them, or not. without this, they cannot become angered... and they need to be angry so that they avoid questioning themselves. how often does it dawn on someone that perhaps the gravity of a perceived offense is so severe not because of its strength... but because of their weakness? do i feel cold because it's cold outside, or because i have bad circulation? did i not dodge the punch because it was too fast, or because i was too slow? we always want to place the origin of our disappointment, displeasure, frustration, on something, anything, but ourselves. we expect that the world should conform to and move in the direction that we want it to - and we devise all kinds of philosophical ways to convince ourselves that we are right about the direction it should move in. when it doesn't, we wage an imaginary war with it to give us something to do (if we aren't engaged in a real war which would demand too much of our time to give us the luxury of pretending to be a hero).

anyway it's hard to say which of the types are present. artimas is too young to have accumulated the necessary rancor and bitterness to need the theory of freewill to substantiate his ressentiment. biggy's just a gadfly and argues for sport. he couldn't care less either way (in good nihilist fashion). urwrong has somehow married ayn rand to thor and has this romantic vision of the noble warrior who ain't a bitch and has freewill cuz that nigga ain't 'bout to do what anyone tells him (which as we have concluded is neither here nor there). jakob and the pez, i'm not sure about. they're kind of like the wonder twins so i imagine that they're psychically linked so that whatever the one believes, the other believes. i think they're more in line with urwrong's approach; freewill as POWERRRRR!!! wonder twin power, activate!

alright now look. i'm not, as a nihilist but not in spite of, saying that this matter is not important. it isn't, says the nihilist in me. it is, says the human in me. and if it is, there can be no advancement, no improvement, until this is first understood; that there is no freewill. not even a smidgon of it. no real philosophical work can be done toward the improvement of man otherwise. well i should take that back. i should say... no understanding of the 'troof' can be had until then... but then what does the troof matter? we've lasted this long on the basis of countless lies, so clearly the species need not know or tell the troof. but some of us are, like you mentioned, the real deal, in hot pursuit of the troof come hell or high water... and we shall not stop until we get our hands around its neck.

all we can do is practice a little patience and take the time to help the one's who aren't already lost forever. there's a 'cut-off' point around thirty or so when it becomes exponentially more difficult to clear the accumulated mess out of the philosophers head... so we've got to act fast, bruh. and you can't save em all. if you tried, you'd save none of em. pick out one that for whatever reason has drawn some admiration from you. i like artimas because he's a pink floyd pot head who's never read a lick of analytical philosophy. i find this to be quite endearing. i used to be like that. a little astrology here, a little jung there, maybe a few pages out of the tao of physics or a couple paragraphs from some random online article on quantum mechanics, an irresistible attraction to the fascinating history of paganism with all the cool symbols and stuff... and fuck it, i was ready. you ask me anything and i got the answers.

this is that youthful confidence and healthy arrogance that is needed in building a solid thinker. ecmandu is a lost cause. this guy needs the theory of freewill like the desert needs the rain, man. i mean this dude gets out of bed looking for something to resent.

let's see, who else. i think that's it, ain't it? karpel and surrep75 are determinists, aren't they? i dunno. i really stopped reading these threads weeks ago. i'm only going on a vague memory of who said what.

oh peacegirl. just adorable. she's a sharp chick... but that's not what's so lovable about her. it's that she thinks this exalted book of hers is some groundbreaking discovery, and her insatiable enthusiasm about it is something you don't have the heart to disturb. it really doesn't matter that nothing new has been said in the freewill/determinism debate for a century... but to watch her running around shouting 'look look, everyone! you won't believe this!', is simply... adorable.

i should give my nihilist caveat now: i am only in this for the money, and this is difficult to explain. i, personally don't give a shit either way whether there's freewill or not. that is to say, i'm not going to be any less disgusted by someone because they have no choice. in fact, and ironically, sometimes i'd rather people have freewill so i could attack a single thing rather than a whole zeitgeist. a single person would be a much easier target... but due to there being no freewill, i gotta attack the mother ship, the grand narrative, the whole frickin' paradigm, ... fuck it, GOD HIMSELF, to take care of a single shmuck.

you know what? i'm gonna say it. NOBODY APPRECIATES ME, sil. nobody ever thanks me for the things i don't say. these folks have no idea how fortunate they are that i'm retired, man. if we were back in 09 i'd be chewing on their bones right now. jesus i'm an arrogant prick. if i were you i wouldn't like me either.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:23 am

shit i forgot meno. troofully, i can't ever make heads or tails out of anything he says. now i know the guy ain't dumb because once in a while there's a clear but extremely brief identifiable semantic and syntactical connection between words... but then... poof... it's gone. it's like he has irritable vowel syndrome or something. but i think he's a freewillist because i think he's religious.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:46 pm

The Pragmatic argument for Free-Will and Determinism.

Pragmatically, it doesn't matter whether any biological organism is "free" or not, determined or not. Instead consider that most people (and probably most life forms), believe they are not free, Determined, cannot escape their (pre-determined) fate, and therefore, choices are illusions, created by the mind in response to stressors. The environment and life is hard, suffering exists, and so the evolved conscious-mind has developed a defense-protocol, to spawn illusions within the mind, so as to "block-out"/Ignore stress-stimulus. Nobody is free. Nothing is free.

But that doesn't stop some rarer individuals or a minority of biology, to act as-if they were free, or more, to think as though they were free-to-think.

Are then, all thoughts illusions? To a Hard Determinist like Silhouette, he must say yes. All thoughts are illusions, and Un-real. Thoughts can never be, in any way, correlated to Reality. Thoughts are not similar to Reality. But to what degree, Silhouette must answer for. Here Hard Determinism is stuck into a bad position. Even if it were true, then it would be utterly weak and unconvincing. There could be no thought possible, that were close or similar to 'reality'. There could be no measure. And any and all thoughts, are necessarily insane. Necessarily divorced from Reality. Necessarily fractured, broken, and schizophrenic. Accuracy would be impossible, to compare the 'real' world and environment, to conceptions and visions of it. Cognition is utterly flawed.

Thus it is to the Hard Determinist, that a "magic" is in everybody's mind. Somebody/Something Higher is twisiting and jerking at the strings. Something is manipulating all minds, all consciousness, all organisms. There is a Grand Authority, Manipulator, First Cause, Creator. Without such, Hard Determinism could not reconcile any simple logic, as logic itself is another flawed manifestation, divorced from reality.

Another illusion spawned by the mind. And this is the grand-thesis, the meta-narrative, the Metaphysics, of Hard Determinism.


The only alternative, pragmatically, would be then to guess at illusions, and say that randomly some are Real-er than others. We can never know. And it doesn't matter. All people can do, all any organism can do, is Guess. And in so Guessing, organisms take risks. And this could be Real-er too than the alternative (Determinism). Cognitive entities, Intelligent, are always guessing at one illusion or another. And sometimes they are closer to "Reality" (we can never know what that is).

Perhaps then, those who keep "guessing rightly" would be least Determined, and so Un-determined, according to the Determinists.


This is as-pragmatic as it can get, to reconcile a Hard-Line stance (Silhouette) with anybody else. To him, any and all senses of freedom, choice, blame, attribution of cause, must be Illusions, conjured by the mind, to quell any and all deep seated environmental stressor, because that is all any cognition could ever be.

Silhouette cannot progress Descartes. A shame. But if he could (were determined to be), then he could use this 'Pragmatic' argument as a ladder, to climb to a higher rung.


Hope? I don't have, or need, any hope for Silhouette. But hope is another product of Freedom, that has yet to be discussed.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Artimas » Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:58 pm

promethean75 wrote:shit i forgot meno. troofully, i can't ever make heads or tails out of anything he says. now i know the guy ain't dumb because once in a while there's a clear but extremely brief identifiable semantic and syntactical connection between words... but then... poof... it's gone. it's like he has irritable vowel syndrome or something. but i think he's a freewillist because i think he's religious.


Perhaps that has something to do with you and an understanding more so than him having a syndrome?
I confidently say I understand what we have discussed, Meno and I.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:20 pm

I understand what we have discussed, Meno and I.


Ohhhh no you don't.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]