Biological Will

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

Re: Biological Will

Postby Artimas » Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:21 pm

I made a similar argument in the ‘new discovery’ thread, UrWrong


Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Artimas wrote:Generally that is how consistency works. You forget that in which you are consistent in using because it is common sense and consistent, the proof is observance of those external to you in positions of turmoil or lesser being due to a context that they have chosen.
external to me, Karpel? external to one in general? And I am not sure what you are trying to say here other wise.

If I eat chocolate everyday and it’s all I ever eat or use, is it going to still taste like chocolate or will I have grown so accustom to it that there is no differentiation? This is why /routine/ gets boring.
I shit once a day and enjoy it. I also eat an apple a day, thought I have less hope than the saying offers about the effects. I enjoy them every day. Though I know the subject isn't really chocolate here. You may even be agreeding with me. I am not sure what you meant.

There’s an argument for freewill for you, which you consistently use, everyday, always.
Me?

But I’ll agree with you that either both don’t exist

Or I’ll go on the side that both do. There is no black and white
I don't know what you mean here or on what issue you are or would be on my side in relation to. The side that thinks a lot of free will arguments are weak? The one that thinks there are problems with determinists being confident in their own logic? Something else?

You assume it’s a relief “Xanax” to have free will when in reality it is a greater responsibility and power. Key word, assume.
I don't think free will is a relief per se if believed in. I believe that when I see arguments that do not hold and the people making them seem smart enough to notice that

the arguments are a xanax. I think arguments in favor of determinism can also be Xanax.

I find both free will and determinism as having unpleasant sides.

Free will would entail that my experiences and desires need not control the choices I want to make. The choice will be uncaused. It can't really be caused by me, because I want certain things and not others and my experiences have led to various ideas about what is possible and how to best go about that and what to avoid. If all that is not causing my choice, then it is as if someone else might as well make the choice for me. Determinism has its obvious downside and needs less explanation.

I think in general people don't really look at all the implications of their beliefs, just the ones that feel good.



“Yes external to you or to any individual. The context of which other individuals have chosen for themselves of which they are at a higher, lower or equal to position in terms of conscious/awareness/will but it is only by choice one can rise higher or sink lower.

Yes and those are things that are consistent and common sense, do you really have to sit to think about whether you should or not take a shit or eat an apple like you do with the arguments or proposition of free will? You don’t hold those things up to the same standard of thought right, because it’s common sense? It is our consistency in use of ‘free will’ and our value attribution along with our deep analytical dissecting of free will and ourselves that creates the illusion of its not existing or existing, it is what creates the question of which the answer is mostly subjective, not always objective, due to not being able to portray the internal complexity and extent of option/possibility in a present continual moment, to any external individual outside and separate to oneself, the external vision appears as only one choice, they can’t see the thought process or feeling behind the other options. And since it appears as a one choice then you can use that argument peacegirl uses “couldn’t have chosen different” but doesn’t take into account the internal complexity behind it of being able to in fact, choose differently.


You or anyone in general whom uses free will to determine or state it is weak or not free. The argument for freewill that you call weaker than determinism, has been created by our comfort in routine and look at what has happened in society, we have people who act terribly and take no self responsibility, a lot of whom play victim to their contextual situations and deem themselves weak with no free will. Yet they still have will yes? How do they function at all otherwise consciously, yet they condemn themselves to not having a ‘free’ will, and become powerless to their own situations by giving power to the situation, which the situation is determinism, cause and effect without understanding it.

There is power in determinism as well though, it’s the use and understanding of determinism that grants the power of estimation for future, the term ‘free will’ is merely the semantic label of the infinity that is inside determinism, the never ending possibilities/opportunities. Free will is the power that may be achieved and understood, determinism is merely the method or system in getting to that power by value attribution. We are a timeless awareness, we can know a future event before it even happens by using determinism and the mind and this is power, we are now /free/ to not take that path of cause and effect due to our logically deducing it to being ruin or maybe we do take it because it helps humanity, even if ones own satisfaction is at risk, it just would seem reasonable and necessary. For every deterministic cause and effect scenario, there is a freedom of will to be gained from it. And there are an infinity of scenarios to choose from. Make sense? In this infinity, we may or may not find ourselves.


I’m on both sides man I see determinism because I use it myself but it’s the endless infinite of possibilities inside determinism via deducing through will, that frees itself.

Maybe both don’t exist, maybe both do. I just don’t pick one side because I can see them both. If I can choose to plan my entire life with my own will and I put myself intricately into context or environment after I have deduced that context or environments effects, I can and will be free by my own abuse/use of the system that is determinism.


I have felt more pain than pleasure in my life.. it’s not that I feel good about free will, I just want others to understand or see that it comes after and it’s a continuous cycle of using determinism to get free, I can only see it as an absolute due to it being an infinite but an infinite is not an absolute because it is a continuity. One may say, well how are you free if you have to use this system before hand? It’s not about the use of it, it’s about choosing what its used /for/, that’s where the freedom comes to play. If I can choose my own environment and environment alters genetics and personality, then I can effectively use that system of determinism to be free to the extent of my choosing and make or discover my own being from there on after.

I agree that arguments can be a Xanax but I gain no pleasure in an attempt at being correct or arguing for free will, I’d much rather be wrong. Being right doesn’t matter to me because my being right or arguing for that sake alone, does not help humanity as much as humanity needs.”

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: 3847
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Biological Will

Postby Artimas » Sat Jun 01, 2019 7:21 pm

promethean75 wrote:
I understand what we have discussed, Meno and I.


Ohhhh no you don't.


Except I do and there’s an entire thread “subconscious” that proves 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: 3847
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way


Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:32 pm

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

How can we recognize the free type?

How do people convince each-other, and themselves, of Freedom?

Isn't it through acts of Victory, Achievement, Excellence, Virtue, and Nobility? All forms of Greatness (and therefore, back to Power), are what signal Freedom. Most humans cannot high jump 5ft. An Olympic athlete can. Most humans are not free to high jump 5ft. Only a select few, are.

Only a select few of humanity, is Free, to do what others cannot.


Most of humanity is bogged-down, dulled, slowed, enslaved. Most of humanity has low morals, low cunning, and low expectation. Thus it is when a 'Higher' walks among them, a Superior (to their Inferiority), that slaves are reminded of Freedom. The inferior envies the superior. All look 'Up' to Nobility. Nobility is a characteristic, a derivative, of Action and Victory = Achievement. Slaves are convinced that nobility is merely born, because this is how they idealize success and freedom, as being "simply born into it".

This is another reason/cause why the slave-mass, the Majority, Humanity, cannot conceive of Nobility or Excellence, within themselves, and so idealize the Noble caste, Idolize them (godliness), and wish to be them, but never can and will. They lack the power, because they lack the drive (Will).

So ofc, as from Promethean, Silhouette, Peacegirl's deterministic sense, the gap will not be bridged between the Free and the Un-free, the Enthralled.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:53 pm

To proclaim faith, adulation, and loyalty to Determinism reeks of Victimization. It screams to the world, "I am a Victim and I deserve your attention, your help, your patience, your love, and I will pull you down with me at the first chance without hesitation!!!"

What's the difference between Free and Un-free? The Determinist is bound by Causality, claims to be "Scientific". The "Scientific Experts" and Physical Theorists say so (overlooking the word 'theory'), (Appeal to Authority by the way) therefore, it must be true. My Master says so. Therefore, it must be true.

Why are all these so-called "Philosophers" or philosophy-enthusiasts, so willing to latch onto other minds, rather than developing their own, their individuality, their "own thoughts", uniqueness, and creativity??? Where are the "Philosophers" who can think outside the box, around here? Where are those who are not bound, restricted, and so easily limited?


The Victim-complex is an extension of the Slave Dialectic, which is an extension of Nihilism, which is an extension of Judæo-Christian-Abrahamism. It is simply put, a bad habit, or more so, the worst habit. As mentioned to Prom earlier, it spawns from this Absolute-Monarch history. Those who have been yoked and broken in the fields, for centuries and millenniums now, have little-to-no Hope. They are thoroughly broken, mind, body, and soul. The essence of them, is Un-free.

This is why here, and elsewhere (Advanced Freedom thread), I pose the question to any-and-everybody, with few responses thus far, how, if possible, can the Un-free become free, or is that a good idea in the first place? Is it not a waste of time, even if it were possible?

Like yanking the slaves from the Platonic cave, the Light scares them, and they recoil, sprinting and clawing their way back to the safety of the Cave. Light burns them (Vampires, Undead, Demons, etc). They are afraid of Light, the sight that it gives, and the warmth.

Afraid to Live.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:59 pm

I sound "too hopeful" perhaps, as-if I don't know the costs, sacrifices, and risks of attaining Freedom.

I can only re-assure those doubtful, that I might indeed. Because it is a great cost, sacrifice, and risk, to chance to attain Freedom. What does it mean to "think freely" except to dispute, doubt, and argue against, all those you have been born with to trust? Your own parents, family, friends? Your own teachers, professors, and wise men? Your own society? Your own culture? Your own race, gender, and specie?

Quickly you will find isolation, distrust, contempt, then hatred, and anger, and fear. Once the break is made, the Fear begins. You will separate from the Mass. Then you become a Threat, for no other reason than to become Unknown. Because to become Unknown is the basis of all fear. People fear what they cannot understand, lack the intelligence and capacity to. These impulses are primal, biological, and instinctive.

So maybe I do know, just a little bit, about freedom. As-if I haven't spent a lifetime poking a hole in the wall of my prison-cell. But seeing the light of day is more than worth it.


What is a common quote among all the 'Great' literature, figures, leaders, and historical wise-men, except the shared attribution of Freedom?

"The Unexamined life (the Un-free) is truly, not worth living..."
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:39 pm

it would never cross the mind of a barbarian who had just slayed a hundred kings and broke a hundred laws, whether or not he has freewill. of course he might find the subject interesting if he were sat down by a philosopher and given a course, but in the end he wouldn't care less. and that's because this question is not important to him, and that's because whether or not he is 'responsible' or 'guilty' or 'culpable' is not important to him. he either does, or does not do, and whether or not he enjoys what he does is all that matters. this barbarian is afraid of no man, no authority, no rules, so whether or not he believed in freewill couldn't be something influenced by fear. if anything at all changed as a result of him believing in freewill, it would be his attitude toward others, not himself. in the same way, if he discovered that he was 'determined', it would change nothing about his attitude toward himself, only others. he doesn't feel stronger in believing in freewill, neither does he feel weaker in believing in determinism.

those preoccupied with this matter are either struggling with their own conscience, or with how to deal with the conscience of others. but in either case, the currency of this matter comes from a struggle. it is not some disinterested philosophical topic like lockean secondary properties, something that if either true or false, would essentially change nothing existential. philosophers don't sit down and begin writing about freewill without feeling some kind of emergency looming in the background. either they're trying to instantiate guilt, or remove it. the weak try to make guilty, the strong try to make innocent... but the strongest barbarians have no interest in doing either. their nerves, like their blades, are made of steel.

we need more barbarians and less librarians.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:42 pm

In the beginning of my Advanced Freedom, I demanded from others to paint a picture of freedom, as you do just now. That's not the end though. Is freedom only a matter of victory, confined to one example of a barbarian warlord, one success among a million failures? Only a fighter can be free? By your example, you expose your own idealization of freedom, which cannot be had by most, and perhaps not cared for by most. Can then, women never be free, as they would most likely never participate in such a fantasy? Or that other races or ethnic groups, also careless? Is freedom only found in warfare, in militarization? And then what, are the fruits and rewards of freedom only sex?

Sure you can paint a pretty picture. But it's only one in a museum.

So who is the librarian, exactly?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:45 pm

What I offered in Advanced Freedom, and here, is a different look and perspective on freedom than most can or will.

Perhaps freedom most manifests in Creativity. And each and every human has their own fantasy (as a barbarian warlord), an idealization of what they can possibly imagine as "most free". Isn't this a central topic of most religions, of most cults? Of gods? That everybody idealizes and idolizes a manifestation of some "greater form/self"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCKRI2wEw7I
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:48 pm

By the way, Prom, what happens after all the challenges and resistances are overcome?

A lifetime of pleasure, excess, opulence? Is that the end-goal of any and all 'Freedom'?

And that freedom is merely a means to an end (to pleasure)?


At least your perspective is "free from" (pain) and "free to" (pleasure). It seems a little too simplistic to me. I'm not saying you're wrong though ...yet.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:53 pm

Another point I'm reminded of,

Doesn't the "Freedom" of one come at the cost of everybody else? And so one vision of freedom (barbarian warlord) comes at the cost of millions and millions of others (killed on the battlefield).

So then, Freedom is a political field as well as a personal and private one. Can 'Freedom' ever be merged with others, or is it completely and absolutely exclusive?

Freedom cannot be shared between biology?
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby barbarianhorde » Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:08 pm

Promethean is of course correct that the whole discussion is moot entirely, as I was right in saying that also, because... well, what s the real issue in life?

Do you know?

It is what do you want.

To be spending all time discussing whether this is all free will or determined (to me it always seems the two terms are in no way a contradiction, just different modelings, its weird to me to think they should exclude each other) is to gloss over what this will happens to be.

In fact Ill state parodically it is due to the "illuminati" that this discussion erupted, because to obfuscates the real point about the will: that it wills something.

Analysing the will, dissecting it, to find out if it is really "yours" or "not", is the best way of evading it.



A strong man of tradition is generally proud to be the result of many generations of identifiable causes. Adopted orphans aren't generally too proud to not know their parents. Its an issue of pride to know where you come from. And pride is a freedom.

Is pride not a freedom? And is such freedom not a cause to the further quality of the life of the pride person?


Look at it as if it is life, rather than academia.
Then you see words and terms aren't the sort of things you can smash together and see which one is stronger.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: banned

Re: Biological Will

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:45 pm

And strength of it in pride is at times more an action , the reaction.
Actions and reactions are sometimes caused by pride, and sometimes by the lack of it.
Fear is at times significant of lack of pride, fear of lack of self control over exhibiting pride. Being controlled by strength diminishes pride into fear.
But how all this is sourced, puts control in the central position , as a regulator, with power on one side and will on the other.
Control increases power by willing more power, over other, when it is sensed that the other is incapable to generate an equal or more power. The amount of power will determine the amount of will to regulate power.
Then, the will of one will change the regulation of the power to will.

So power and will depend on sense of this interchange.
Control becomes the key of determination of subsequent patterns of control, and slavery is the result of almost no power to will.-to power.

So yes the mean ing is determinative to the sense of control, (primae faces)
but it is only description of the dynamic of the will to control, where control has been displaced as a regulator, to being subject to apparent power differentials.
The sense, or the need to regulate is no longer in an autonomous position , (sensibke), because looking the understanding of its relationship as both known and sensible
Fear develop a without it's proper role, and that fear effects an automatically role, by the dyssymetry between automatic behavior, and the gradual knowledge of the use of the power to will atominously, rather then automatically.
Academia centers such sensations as live, hate, fear, rather through meaning, as if analysis can power The will through function even through a compensatory will to control the interaction between fear and the will.

For instance, a slave after emancipation remains a defacto slave, even if free de-jure.
To all outward relationships this seems inexplicable. The dynamics remain ex-cathedra, compensations between sense and control are still perceived in the usual way, control still relies on apparent signifiers of control based on sense.

This sense is not necessarily trying to understand the level of extrinsic political power , but the capacity to regulate, or control the uses of power to both: will and understand.

I know that this could have been expressed in a shorter and more academic Zen Joan, but, ivory towers assume the same pattern . and they probably internalize a like minded slavery.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8090
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Biological Will

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:55 pm

so how do free will and determination interact? By functions related to application of control toward underatanding and applying the will to power, through transferring power to war the emotive transcendence of and through objects of fear. The understanding od the repetitive and automatic reliance of the dynamics between them, can in time displace control back into the central position, thereby re-integrating the will into it's central power source, delimitong it's compensatory function.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8090
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Biological Will

Postby Artimas » Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:52 pm

Meno_ wrote:so how do free will and determination interact? By functions related to application of control toward underatanding and applying the will to power, through transferring power to war the emotive transcendence of and through objects of fear. The understanding od the repetitive and automatic reliance of the dynamics between them, can in time displace control back into the central position, thereby re-integrating the will into it's central power source, delimitong it's compensatory function.


And it goes on forever. Power at the top, achievement restarts the pyramid.

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: 3847
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Biological Will

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:40 pm

The Freedom of a barbarian warlord (his value) is not the same as a king who must attend a throne, or a priest who must develop his devotees, or a wife who must bear many children for her husband, or a child who seeks to learn astrophysics, or a bird with one wing, or a polar bear in Antarctica, etc.

Surely you can advocate and push a rarer position: such-and-such fantasy is the best. But what is really meant is, best for you-yourself. And the dream of any one individual, is never the same as others, although some fantasies are shared farther and wider than others. Surely it appeals to many men to be barbarian warlords, which is not to say its popularity has merit, or would be attractive to everybody. What is the more casual and realistic stance?

Most men just want to work a 9-to-5 job, have a home, some land, a wife, some children, etc. This would be most realistic if not the most lived situation. Would most people claim to be "slaves to their jobs"? In Modernity, probably, yes.


The Modern and Post-Modern situation is same as its always been. There's a relationship of Dreams/Fantasy/Ideals/Art versus the reality. Sometimes a society, culture, or group of people dream much bigger than others. Sometimes the Desires are too great. Sometimes they are not enough.

But it should be more obvious now, at the very least, that Freedom is "tied" to value, and to the will. There is a necessary-relationship.


The Manifestation of Freedom is more interesting to me now. Everybody, potentially all living things, have innate-desires, and so perhaps, qualities and types of Dreams/Desires/Ideals/Goals. So the freedom of an insect, bird, fish, mammal, will never be equal to one-another. But it can be the case that Will is shared, and more people or organisms have common interests (Will-to-Power) by specie.

An organism is "designed/created" (determined?) to do one thing.

Another organism is designed/created to do another thing.


It doesn't change the arguments or the fallacies. Determinism is still a post hoc fallacy, always looking backward with "it always must have been so beforehand", and when pressured to provide examples of Freedom, or proof, will always move the Goalposts, never allowing any possibility of freedom to leak in. Because to do so, would break their paradigm, and admit that Control/Power/Fate is relative to individuals, and their values, and their goals.

Freedom is the essence of Dreams.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:39 pm

promethean75 wrote: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...

In both of these types I see a lot of motivation to pursue utility, rather than truth. It comes across as an exercise to improve their lives, with the extent to which they need their lives to improve manifesting as the extent to which their means "override" their acceptance of what's actually true. The distinction between the "can't" and the "won't" that you are making can all but dissolve as the depth of the psychological need becomes great enough - to persuade others and themselves that they are free and powerful agents, who can and will overcome their difficulties. Most aren't arguing that hard, but the ceaseless re-iteration and self-reassurance that is going on by at least one of these parties really betrays a lot, and communicates the exact opposite message to that which seems to be intended. This case brings to mind a religious zealot who will insist that doubters and non-believers simply lack the ability to understand their belief in Santa Claus.

But this is where the Motte and Bailey really comes into play: we attack the Bailey, they retreat to the Motte, and construct an extensive strawman of the kind that attacks their Motte. Nobody attacked the Motte, not one. So as you were saying either they can't or won't see the distinction - and whether it is "can't" or "won't" is unclear in the more extreme of cases.

The Bailey that has successfully been destroyed held that the causation of choices into actions is only a one-way street, when simple observation and reason show it is not.
The Motte is that some people are creative, risk-taking self-sacrificers and challengers of authority who think outside the box, and others are merely weak-willed, enslaved victims and conformists who are afraid to live and don't even know what it is to live.

As should be obvious, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other: one can subscribe to either the one-way or two-way causation between choice and action, and equally be either weakly or strongly driven: the two are completely independent.
And yet to attack the Bailey with both empirical and logical evidence, because both the Motte and Bailey are different definitions of "freedom", the attackers are taken to be attacking both definitions equally, and if one attacks the Motte, they are likely envious or lacking in that definition of freedom which they never attacked in the first place.

The best way to communicate Motte "freedom" is not to go on and on and on endlessly about how much of this "freedom" you have over those who don't simply agree with your Bailey "freedom", labelling them conformists for not conforming to your views, and to confuse and conflate distinct and independent definitions of "freedom" whilst claiming higher intelligence and capacity in general.

The reason why you're wrong that nobody appreciates you is that you understand the above - and in the wake of too many fools mutually reassuring each other, who can't understand the above, this is appreciated.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:55 pm

And yet all champions of determinism have languidly wallowed in their refusal to give even a glimpse of what they consider to be a verifiable causal chain that explains the existence of matter, or life, or themselves.

I hold that there is no contradiction between free will and determinism - the will is just one thing which determines much of what is going on. But two of determinisms main advocates havent even looked in the direction of their own burden of proof.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is called "free will". They are under no ontological obligation to logically respond to challenges or to use any relevant resources (like experience) to defend their postion. They can just decide that it stands and argue from there.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:40 pm

Jakob wrote:And yet all champions of determinism have languidly wallowed in their refusal to give even a glimpse of what they consider to be a verifiable causal chain that explains the existence of matter, or life, or themselves.

I've not been aware of any such refusal, never mind a languid wallowing in one.

I am to gather, however, that any deterministic modelling known to you is regarded to not be verifiable? What would you consider to be verifiable, if not the results of centuries of applying the scientific method to all walks of life that have been considered this far into human history? To perfectly erroneous accusations of an appeal to authority here - the whole point of the scientific method is that anyone is able to replicate the same tests and results - it's independent of the person who performs the experiments, formulates the deductions and inductions and extrapolates their implications into further realms of testing. The whole point of anyone being able to replicate the same results is to prove previous deterministic modelling flawed, and to then come up with a better modelling that can likewise be falsified and improved in a continuous process. This continuous dialectic between nature's empirical evidence and nature's modelling of said evidence through humans, is the most democratic process ever constructed and thereby the least authoritatian one.

You can go out into the world yourself and test any deterministic theory you like to explain the existence of matter, life, or yourself. Do you need someone who understands and respects this process to do it for you before you are convinced of its superiority, or won't you verify or falsify these causal chains yourself? Don't trust what I have to say, go out and find out for yourself.

Jakob wrote:I hold that there is no contradiction between free will and determinism - the will is just one thing which determines much of what is going on. But two of determinisms main advocates havent even looked in the direction of their own burden of proof.

My primary aim is not to show the absolute perfection of Determinism, only to prove that Free Will is absolutely wrong to all extents (in the "Bailey" sense, not the "Motte" one). So before I am yet again fallaciously accused of being against freedom in the sense of not being constrained by what others say, and try to do that could be resisted by someone with a strong will, I say again that this is an incomplete definition of freedom that I have in abundance. But a complete definition of freedom, where the will itself is subject to causation by the four Fundamental Forces (which as above can be tested in any legitimate way you like, whoever you are) means that even the strongest and most individual and capable of wills is not free from physical laws - and is thus unfree whether anyone likes it or not - as even the strongest, most individual and capable of wills can test scientifically themselves.

I've even heard it suggested that going beyond orbit is "escaping" gravity - *the* most hilariously ignorant statement I've ever heard.

But stupidity aside, no degree of Free Will (in the complete "Bailey" sense) is possible no matter how much "freedom" (in the incomplete "Motte" sense) that one might have for the following reasons at the very least:
1) Possibility is not actuality: the feeling that you could have chosen differently doesn't make it an actual choice. Only actually choosing makes something actually possible.
2) The mind-body problem. Not a problem in the sense that it could have a solution, but a problem in the sense that it's an unavoidable obstacle to any degree of Free Will at all - since Free Will requires a Dualistic mind-body separation.
3) How can you be influenced by circumstance, in order to have something to make a decision about, without being influenced by circumstance, in order for your decision to be free from said influence? Free or Will? Not both.

In the confirmed absence of Free Will, as above, and with all the Deterministic technological innovation in the world, alongside all the scientific experimentation into the Determinism of even the will itself working in the favour of Determinism - whatever flaws you might think Determinism has, it is continually proven as vastly superior if not perfect every day, and you are more than welcome to try and formulate an experiment that proves all this overwhelming evidence and reasoning was in fact all just illusion after all.

Jakob wrote:This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is called "free will". They are under no ontological obligation to logically respond to challenges or to use any relevant resources (like experience) to defend their postion. They can just decide that it stands and argue from there.

Anyone can be a scientist, Jakob. Design your own experiment to prove there is no gravity after all. Show indisputable proof that the electro-magnetic force was all just "free will". What experiment do you think you could conduct to show that stimulation of the brain actually has zero effect on your thoughts, feelings and choices - if you simply "will" the four fundamental forces to bend to your desires?

The floor is open for you, champion of "free will", and always will be.

Incidentally, someone could equally be determined to decide a theory stands and argue from there - and without you believing or confirming the experimentation yourself - it is ironically you who is being determined to decide that free will stands and arguing from there.

I'll confirm one last time, I am arguing in favour of the determinism of the will, not that some people are more creative, individual, strongly and capably willed than others - that is obvious. The point is how free are even they, from Determinism and what the four fundamental forces model?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:06 am

But this is where the Motte and Bailey really comes into play: we attack the Bailey, they retreat to the Motte, and construct an extensive strawman of the kind that attacks their Motte. Nobody attacked the Motte, not one. So as you were saying either they can't or won't see the distinction - and whether it is "can't" or "won't" is unclear in the more extreme of cases.


i just took a look at this 'bailey/motte' thing, and to be honest i don't think they knowingly employ this tactic. i say this because i think they think the bailey is the motte; they aren't able to distinguish the difference between an ordinary, non-philosophical and commonsense use of the word (e.g., i'm free to go grocery shopping or i live in a free country or i pick freely among choices) and a specialized understanding of what the word strictly means in terms of metaphysics.

so it's a difficult situation here because while they don't really understand what's going on, they still feel more 'comfortable' with believing they have freewill. these two circumstances sort of compliment each other and make it more unlikely that they'll ever get it.

i think this proceeds from the incredibly important desire to want to think one's in control... which is strange because determinism does not relinquish control... it only changes the center of it. or i should say, it eliminates the center, the 'self', as some kind of self perpetuating prima causa.

i've also stated before how i believe that an inherent part of human nature - at least pertaining to those who can't understand that there is no freewill - is the insatiable desire to try and exhibit control over others indirectly where they can't do so directly (physically and forcefully). this attempt to control and essentially manipulate (so to make someone useful) is exercised through the moral judgement... to impart the feeling of guilt and remorse so to debilitate and weaken. and what is so unique about this is that this tendency isn't something that results, in all cases, from some kind of pre-meditated 'evil' intention. this tendency is quite literally hardwired in the human being... a kind of evolved power for an animal forced into socialization. it's not ironic that nietzsche called morality the most immoral of all human idiosyncrasies.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Jakob » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:15 am

Silhouette, you post and, I realize now, your entire position relies on the assumption that determinism and scientific method are the same thing.

I think you would benefit from rereading without-music's thread more than from me explaining why science is not remotely adequate to philosophy in this sense. At least, it would spare me the trouble of dispelling such an immense straw man.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:25 am

holy shit i just had an insight. it was the civilizing of the animal man that created the demand to have this idiosyncrasy (mentioned above) as a kind of accidental side-effect of the effort made to try and prevent it. the very existence of 'law' forces man to exhibit his will indirectly... instead of busting a nigga in the face, he has to follow codes of conduct in repudiating. this, in addition to forcing the will underground, actually generates a greater tension through frustrating both offended and offender. now, rather than a score being settled, nothing is ever really resolved, but continues to linger. why is this so? because both the conviction that morality is objective, and can it be recognized, and can be acknowledged by those who are repudiated, compounds the problem threefold. but now see the irony? the very purpose of civil law and codes of conduct was to prevent such tension and resolve conflict peacefully. it does not. it only either further complicates and/but makes undetectable, or forces people into agreement about what actually does not exist. one emerges more angry, or more stupid.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby promethean75 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:34 am

jakobson has a point, sil. the thesis of determinism is not something we reason a posteriori. we infer it, but we can't confirm it. nonetheless - and here is where freewillists strike me as silly - we experience and witness such consistent contiguity of events in the natural world that we'd (they'd) be rather unfounded to assume that our choices merely correspond to neural events rather than being causally contiguous with/to them. in short, why would an exception be made for me when i move about in the world... but i'd not hesitate to say the fire caused the heat, or gravity caused the ball to fall, or magma movement caused tectonic shifts, or carbon emissions cause the greenhouse effect.

this seems unfair to the heat, the ball, the plates, and the greenhouse effect. i feel obligated to say these things too have their own freewill.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:36 am

promethean75 wrote:the very purpose of civil law and codes of conduct was to prevent such tension and resolve conflict peacefully..



It was this:



People in castles. Being like wtf. They didn't care an iota about no tension. Except to the extent they had to to, you know, keep something from making it hard to do their than thang.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Biological Will

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:43 am

The video is awesome and the sound on the one I used is lamentable, but I can't abide by censored rap.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron