Page 1 of 13

Biological Will

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 11:01 pm
by Urwrongx1000
It seems to me that every lifeform has a biological "Will", a need and desire to survive at all costs.

Because this is inherent within all life, it is common. But you would not call all life "free", in the sense that a tree is firmly rooted in the ground. It cannot move. It does not have a "Choice" to do so. But fish can move, and thus have a "Choice". Insects do. Birds do. Amphibians and lizards do. Mammals do. Etc. "Choice" is a factor of evolution. The more evolved an organism is, the more "Choices", and thus "Freedom" it is claimed to have.

In a metaphysical way, "Will" is the starting point of Freedom. If trees could move around, walk around, why wouldn't they? And surely even the simplest of organisms, like bacteria and viruses, make some sort of "choice" on a microscopic level. For example, bacteria will "move" toward food sources, nutrients, and hospitable environments and "away" from inhospitable, deadly areas. Life "moves" away from death constantly.

What Determinists fail to understand, repeatedly, is the way-in-which any and every particular organism has more choices, and hence more Freedom, compared to others. What is ignored is the unique, independent, and "mysterious" methods of survival or thriving. Life seems to have some core common traits, yet from this, is divergence, leading to "Evolution" itself. Evolution proves that the result to the "Determined" core qualities, are a myriad of unpredictable qualities, referred in Science as "mutations" or simply any type of difference.

Because even when "life" is guranteed in a general sense, the Independent nature of life begins an internal conflict and competition. This is the beginning of the 'Predator' instinct. One life will consume another life, in order to 'further' itself, leading to, evolution, freedom, more choices, etc.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 11:54 am
by promethean75
you might have missed sil's earlier point, which is now more pertinent than ever for this thread.

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.

that being said, ask yourself this; if you discovered that the theory of determinism was true, would this change anything about what you've just articulated in this thread? what i'm saying is, for all you know, determinism could be true, and this would change nothing about what you've just said. this is an instance of that 'unfalsifiability' of each thesis - freewill and determinism - and the irrelevance of each as a matter of fact.

so then what does this age old debate matter, or why does it seem to matter so much? i'll tell you. insofar as we believe one thesis or the other, the conclusions we draw logically from each has profound importance in shaping our moral attitude toward the world. in the sciences, it is already assumed that causation exists; in fact that's the very business of the sciences... describing and explaining phenomena, particularly how they behave, why they behave. in ethics, we seek to do the same thing. understand, describe and explain moral behavior. now you can imagine the extraordinarily different conclusions about moral behavior that would be reached by those who believe in freewill and those who believe in determinism. unlike the sciences, these differences of belief would be incredibly important and change the entire field itself. this is to say the pragmatism of each thesis is as fundamentally different as it is irreconcilable. in ethics, it really does matter how we understand human behavior because the basis of our positive law is founded on that understanding (cue the part where peacegirl explains how determinism corrects centuries of multifarious nonsense). the irony here is that with an provisional acceptance of determinism, our responsibility is actually increased, because we are no longer looking 'inside' for the cause of behavior, but 'outside', as externalists, into the environment and culture. now if we seek to correct or modify a behavior, we don't haggle the individual about whether or not he 'knows' what's 'right and wrong', or if he could have 'chosen' otherwise. instead we examine how and why an individual would be compelled to be what he is; we look for ways outside of the individual that would lead him to do what he's done, etc., etc.

prior to this revolution in our understanding, we'd continue to make the same mistakes; we assume that there is a 'right and wrong', that all individuals are able to recognize what we believe is 'right and wrong', and that finally all individuals are either objectively 'good or bad', rather than being equally committed to doing what they all think they should do, and believing each and all that what they should do is the 'right' thing (remember plato said everyone acts for what they believe is the good).

this is the great danger of freewill. not only that it is metaphysical nonsense, but it also has profound effects in the practical realm of morality. it breeds division, contempt, anger, suspicion, envy, persecution, alienation, and a host of other emotions that all originate from an elementary misunderstanding of human nature. what human beings are, and why they do what they do.

peacegirl is the only one so far who has been able to see into the future. the rest (or most) are still quibbling over senseless language games and running in circles. now i don't care, mind you. i'm only trying to help your species become what it wants to become but lacks the insight to be able to do so. if ya'll botch the whole thing, it's no matter to me. i lose nothing from a failed species. they fail all the time across the universe. nothin' new. we see it happen all the time.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2019 9:45 pm
by Urwrongx1000
I believe I've already presented enough counter-argument to Sil on his 'Deterministic' premise.

As you mention and admit, Determinism depends almost entirely, or completely, on a 'Physics' theory. It is as-theoretical and hypothetical, as "free-will" could possibly be. The difference is the manner in which Evidence can be provided and points proven. So a main point is then Falsifiability. If Determinism cannot be falsified, then it is in fact, not scientific at all. It is the true "metaphysical" claim, not Free-Will.

Furthermore, as I presented my case on Free-Will multiple times to multiple people (perhaps you didn't read my other threads), the evidence for Free-Will piles up into mountains and mountains while "Deterministic" evidence does not. Causes are presumptions, not facts. Science is always looking and searching for "Causes", but that doesn't mean they are fact-before-the-fact. This is something that Silhouette either doesn't understand, or worse, overlooks and ignores intentionally. Science is an examination of possible causes, never 'known' causes. Science depends on Theory as its premise. Facts extend from theory, never the other way around.

So those claiming "Science is on my side" in the case of Determinism, are usually contradicting themselves. "Facts" are not on your side, when your Theory is in question from the beginning. And regarding Quantum Physics or Theories of Relativity ...regarding Newtonian Laws (which are most superior of all), all of these are stated and admitted theories.

My presentations on Free-Will are actually more scientific than the Determinists. Because I can demonstrate evidence, provide proof, and my claims are falsifiable. I say, simply, look at this Tree, can it move of "its own accord"? No. Look at this fly, can it move "of its own accord"? Yes. Look at this cat, can it move "of its own accord"? Yes.

Hard-Determinists must answer, No, No, No, and ultimately "nothing moves of its own accord" because freedom is an impossibility. There is no way, ever, anyway, that anything, any creature can "move freely".

So they have the "metaphysical" stance, not me. And their is Un-scientific, not mine. Mine is entirely within the confine of Science.

All-in-all, "Determinism" has little else than Logical Fallacies, Weak Arguments, and Absolute Presumptions about all existence.

I go further ...I can relate the "Deterministic" attitude to a pathological weakness. Some individuals, need an absolute "sense of security" in life. Many humans need a 'God'. These are the Determinists. They want to feel there is some Absolute Order at play in the universe, in existence. That all things, all life, all matter "follows such and such laws". When, as you admitted before, they don't necessarily. Nature is Chaos. Nature is without Law. Nature is Free.

And this scares the shit out of patholigical weaklings, who need that sense-of-security, or they would lose their minds. Independence, Independent thought, Free-thinking, is something they'll never grasp and never care for. It has no value to these types.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 1:26 am
by promethean75
If Determinism cannot be falsified, then it is in fact, not scientific at all. It is the true "metaphysical" claim, not Free-Will.

as i've said, neither theory is falsifiable. but there's a detail your missing... something i've explained before elsewhere. i do this alot; assume, erroneously, that people are following my posts... that they actually read, comprehend, and retain what i've said. i'm fairly certain now that this isn't happening, so i'll humor you and repeat it again.

freewill is a version of determinism, usually called 'agent causation'. the opposite theory of each version of determinism - one being a form of substance monism and the other, substance dualism - is indeterminism. now while none of these theories are falsifiable, meaning 'testable', indeterminism and substance-dualism agent causation, as theories, produce far more perplexities and conceptual problems than substance-monism determinism. this is why i stated before that in the case that we are faced with three theories that are 'metaphysical' and not scientific in nature, we must commit to examining deductive arguments and lines of reasoning that are parsimonious, and which leave us with less conceptual difficulties to resolve. this is why i advised reading spinoza's work. it is the most thorough and logically consistent body of thought describing and explaining what causation is and how it would work, that i've ever found.

another way to approach this matter is to ask how an indeterminate universe would operate. that is to say, how could anything happen without there being any kind of causation whatsoever. we'd have to ask why is the manner in which things exist in space/time and undergo forms of change, the way it is, rather than some other way. our intuition tells us an indeterminate universe is inconceivable... so we set out to identify what, and in what way, causation is and might exist. this leads us to the two versions of determinism... and from there, a rigorous analysis of the types would lead directly to substance-monism determinism if only because it is the simplest conclusion given the available evidence (which is rational, not existential).

now i too have a theory about why people believe in freewill, or agent-causation. one reason would simply be that they lack the intelligence to understand or at least identify the problems with the theory. this doesn't mean they're dumb. there are different kinds of intelligence, and the inability to sort through the freewill argument might just be a kind of cognitive handicap for all i know. the other reason would be psychological, and i would almost literally invert your own reasoning regarding what compels people to believe in substance-monism determinism. but this is a bit tricky to explain, because people don't 'choose' not to believe in it; if they understand it, they can't not believe in it. so if people believe in freewill, it can't be because they want to, but because they have to, because they aren't intelligent enough not to.

that being said, i still think there is a degree of 'comfort' in believing freewill is real. something that is comfortable for a certain type of person with a specific set of psychological problems, you might say. at the heart of this is the feeling of envy, resentment, and a general weakness of constitution. an sensitivity to being offended easily, of being very fragile in mind and attitude, of wanting to blame and reprimand. but why would anyone desire to do this unless they were weak enough in mind and body to be able to be offended so?

perhaps i can speak on my own behalf as an example. there is absolutely nothing a human being could ever do that would 'offend' me in the sense that most people feel offended... and this is because first, i understand why people do what they do, and second, i know that there is no freewill. i literally can't feel 'appalled' by anything. disgusted, sure, but in the same way that a person feels disgusted by some lower creature like an dirty insect or something. so if i step on a cockroach, it isn't because i'm angry at the thing, or because i think the thing deserves to be stepped on. these reasons don't cross my mind. it's simply that i find the thing to be ugly, or an inconvenience in some way, and want to remove it. there is no 'moral' judgement in any of this. my relationship to human beings is the same way. some i admire for whatever reason, and some disgust me for whatever reason. no 'anger' or 'spite' in any of this. perfectly moraline-free.

maybe you can familiarize yourself with this strange way of seeing the world by studying the ideas of the stoics. this will help you understand my position, except that i'm a stoic without an ounce of pacifism in my blood. i do not 'submit to fate', tolerate, or forgive what i find contemptible, tasteless and ugly. i'm a very pro-active stoic, one who will not hesitate to engage with the world and the people in it. really, the only distinguishing feature that makes me a stoic is that i know freewill does not exist, and without it, there is no excuse for resentment or hatred. these are emotions people feel who do not understand how the universe works.

i think another element of my personality that makes me so perfectly predisposed to be like this is my extraordinary pride and self-respect. i think very highly of myself and by contrast, i consider most people inferior. now it makes sense; how can i be offended by something that is less than me? to be offended... to be able to be offended, something has to have enough power to shake me, to disturb me, to threaten me or put me in some kind of danger. i don't... no, i can't, take most people seriously in this way. to me, they only seem silly, harmlessly stupid, something trivial, not to be bothered with, not to be paid any attention to.

there is nothing in me that wants or needs to believe in freewill. i am perfectly disinterested and indifferent to whether or not it's true. it's not, mind you, but i wouldn't care either way if it were.

and of course; i'd strike most people as being short of a full deck because of my attitude. it just seems so abnormal to be this way... almost symptomatic of being a sociopath of sorts. but perhaps a more complete understanding of nature sets one aside from ordinary, 'normal' people who busy themselves with such trifling. yeah, i'd expect that i strike most people as odd. but i love the irony. i thrive in it. i consider myself one of the very few 'sane', while the vast majority are mad. a conglomerate of idiocy, neurosis, inferiority complex, fear, envy, shallowness, and a host of other idiosyncrasies that have become so developed in them that they're almost indistinguishable from instinct.

so yeah no, freewill is a kind of determinism. do some googling... go ahead... snoop around, and after reading up on indeterminism, practice comparing the theories with each other. get to the bottom of it. find the fundamental premises from which each theory begins, and then trace their individual paths away from each other. when you get a bird's eye view, everything will look different and you'll be like 'holy shiznit'.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 5:36 pm
by Urwrongx1000
promethean75 wrote:as i've said, neither theory is falsifiable.

Incorrect, it's actually quite easy to observe and conclude about the 'freedom' of any object or organism.

Are trees free? Yes or no, it's easy to test. Can trees move? A thing that cannot move, is it free? Is a human free?

Should be simple questions with simple answers... even a kindergarten child knows/intuits that a human is freer than a tree, a rock, an insect.

If you have trouble understanding, like Sil, I won't feel the need to say more....

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2019 11:48 pm
by promethean75

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:07 am
by Urwrongx1000
So Free-Will is falsifiable but Determinism is not...

It should be obvious which is more 'Scientific'. Acting as though Causality is the backbone of Science, without understanding Causality, and without understanding Falsifiability, any such conversation cannot proceed.

In Science, if your premise cannot be falsified (Determinism: all matter and all existence share an ultimate Prima Causa, or, there is a cause for everything, even if unknown), then it is not Science. It's Religion. Determinism is a Religion (Judæo-Christianity for those who don't know). Free-Will is not. Free-Will doesn't even have to be "believed in". Because Free-Will is belief-itself, a representation of hope (for survival).

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 1:36 am
by promethean75

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 1:40 am
by promethean75

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:27 pm
by barbarianhorde
promethean75 wrote:
(determinism, Kant and Hume and analytic vs synthetic arguments)

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 12:39 pm
by barbarianhorde
Im keeping these very short as Ill get very boring otherwise. But I hope I can add something to the discussion.
(free will? causes of freedom or freedom as a cause, power as a cause, Nietzsche, Einstein)

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 1:09 pm
by barbarianhorde
A pretty long winded follow up here. Discerning historical from ongoing causes.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 2:12 pm
by promethean75

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sat May 25, 2019 6:36 pm
by Artimas
promethean75 wrote:

An external individual can not change another individual and what made that individual what they are, only they can... that’s what a free will is. They have to consciously accept their mistakes as wrong or just as mistakes.

People do make choices on which options they have, often of does this hurt me or does this hurt someone else. A lot of people pick to hurt someone else instead of dealing with hurt because of a false “greater satisfaction” That’s cowardice, weakness. I don’t like hearing excuses for it. Cause and effect is real, but the fact we’re doing philosophy right now discussing it shows that they could be doing the same thing. Which shows that model of thought is not fully accurate. People should take into account the criminals situation but also their words, lies exist, false satisfaction exists, no one has to be controlled by their satisfactions exploiting other people. If you think there’s no free choice in value regarding that then you argue against my objective existence.

The fact that greater satisfaction doesn’t exist, destroys yours and peacegirls argument. It’s illusory, temporary and hardly lasts. So why go with it at all? The only thing real here and non temporary is knowledge(knowing) wisdom(understanding), pain and energy of many forms.

If I can understand satisfaction is Bill shit, are you saying you can’t or some other person on the street can’t because they weren’t introduced to that thought externally? It’s called, using your own mind to solve those moral issues, logical deducing. If I harm someone else dishonestly, it’s most likely not right. If I intentionally go out of my way to harm someone because it benefits me, that’s not right. If you live your life solely off of the next better “satisfaction” I feel sorry for you, will be disappointed a lot with what comes after the fast ending feeling of “satisfied”. Comfort too is an instinct of which ends quickly after indulged in. So ultimately your argument is that people fall for their instincts, which guess what, a free will is what cures that issue to the far extents upon which one chooses to go if they value it. A conscious choice to be humble and to learn and accept your own wrongs and shadow whilst not feeding it.

Are you saying they don’t know the harm to come? That could be so but that’s what mistakes are, learn from them. History is there for a reason.

What one does with their pain, is up to them. I don’t give a fuck what anyone is “taught” teachings can be let go. Takes mistakes to learn. That’s why we make them. Prison is a place to reflect upon those conscious mistakes, to adjust morality and no, morality is not all subjective if you can understand yourself. It’s objectively good for me not to say certain things to an ignorant person, it’s about knowing your situations and which ones you should bother engaging with. If others don’t know that. It isn’t my fault for their not knowing, it isn’t an external fault for their not knowing. There are plenty of fucking books for them to read locally, I guarantee it.

You know why religion and spirituality exist or their intended purpose/usage?, to guide mankind morally to free their own will. So look at the world and tell me, do you think those people have adapted to or adopted those teachings and adjusted them to fit their lives and contextual situations? No? Then there is your issue. Religions can be /bad/ if one /chooses/ for it to be bad. If something external effects your view upon religion, then you now have a bias and are indoctrinated without fully immersing yourself in the experience of that specific idea.

There is a reason Aristotle said this and I live my life by this quote to my best ability.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

Because he knew that bias kills wisdom and open mindedness. I want you to take a long good look at the world and tell me, do you think people are open minded, do you think people understand the religion if they -do- use it as a tool for themself, do you think people live by Aristotle’s quote as well? No? Then you have your answers for why things are the way they are. Cause and effect drives individuals to learn, if not then what’s a mistake if not a lesson? the freedom is their choosing to learn or to not of which if they make the right choice, Their will becomes more free, by an understanding of all sides and questions posed regarding contextual situation and self. So have people chosen to learn, judging by how the world is? You tell me.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 12:01 am
by Urwrongx1000

promethean75 wrote:

A few things:

1. Mind-body Duality
Determinists must believe in Spinoza's Monadology, which is the basis for Ontology (and Atomic Theory), because otherwise a Determinist would be forced into, as you say, "two types of cause" or "two types of sbustance/matter". If there were "two types of causes" then it won't make sense to say that "all things are caused" without knowing exactly which set or standard of 'Causes' there are. As an analogy, it would be equivalent to stating that there are "Two Laws" which govern the universe, one applied to this (not-Humanity), and the other applied to that (Humanity).

I started this thread because, if Will is an essence of all life then Determinists are forced into an even more difficult position. You must explain for all types of Causes, to therein correspond to any-and-all types of Freedom, especially that of the simplest organic life, along with the most complex (and evolved).

2. Falsifiability of Free Will
It doesn't matter if 'freedom' is used physically or metaphysically, or even absurdly. If anything can shown to be free, which as you imply is a matter of Ability, then a case is made for free-will. Determinism has no such positive standard. Instead Determinism is a reaction to Free-Will (preceding it). Determinism must claim that nobody-and-nothing is free, and furthermore, any-and-all thoughts of 'freedom' conceived by Humanity, is an illusion (compared to what?) or a lie (compared to what?). Because Determinism has no other argument, it will always fall into this state.

The presumption is that "all things are caused, and nothing can be free from All Causality". But "All Causality" doesn't really mean anything. Causes aren't a "thing". A thing must cause another thing. So to say, "all things are caused", begs-the-question, as to "Caused by What/Whom?".

This is why Determinism is strongly Judæo-Christian, or if you want to go further back into the past, a product of Absolute Monarchy/Power. Caused by One Thing (A Creator/The Creator).

Without a religious underpinning, without a thesis or premise, there is no "who or what" caused anything, any event, any phenomenon. So Determinism cannot stand on Nothing. If it does, as somebody like Sil presents it, then it is Un-falsifiable, and therefore, not Scientific.

3. Internal Law
So do the Biological or 'Human' internal-laws contradict or waver, in any way from, the so-presumed "Natural Law" from which all things are claimed to be Caused (a priori)? Are humans "exceptional", exceptions from "The Rules"? How about Gravity? Have humans defied Gravity? In the Pragmatic sense, yes, Humans have traveled outside the Earth's atmosphere, and so are no longer beholden to the Earthly notion of Gravity. The counter-argument: "But Gravity still exists, as a phenomenon and force, even if humanity travels beyond its cause (Earth), and therefore the Cause still exists"

Here's the problem. The hypothetical "Causes" of anything are only relevant directly pertaining to a specific setting and environment. If humans were born in a space-ship in zero-gravity light-years outside Earth then they would have little or no concept of "Gravity" and so would deny that such a "Law of Gravity" pertains to them. Different environments, and therefore, different laws.

So Sil would argue here, "but there are Grand Physical Laws for everything". But this is a weak-argument, because you are then trying backpedal your "Causality" to some ultimate-unifying principle, in order to retain a convincing point (that all things are caused, or worse, caused equally, and futhermore, that there is "only one" type of cause).

4. General theme - Unknown causes
My main points have always been this. If your argument for Determinism rests on "Grand Unifying Physical Theories" then A: you're probably not being as "Scientific" as you think you are (to Sil), B: you almost certainly, don't know what you're talking about, and C: if you admit to "Unknown Causes" then you are always presenting a very weak-argument as to the thesis of Determinism-in-general. Any "Deterministic" argument that were reasonable, would present the causes of such-and-such thing or event, or phenomenon, and then use those patterns of causality to either correlate them to the causes of anything else (Hence, Analogy), or understand the pattern of the cause itself.

It strikes me as obvious and common sense that, even Physically, a rock is least free. Water is 'freer'. Air is freer still. And fire is 'freest' in its ability to move in all directions, quickly, and seemingly randomly. If there is "freedom" in this physical (or metaphysical) sense, then does it really matter to then say that humans, and organic life, is less-free or more-free, from individual to individual? How else could it be that a rock is least free, and then, so is this person right here. Or fire is "freest", but then so too, is that person right there freest of human people?

It ought to make sense on the most intuitive level that some people "cannot escape" their heavy, laden, immobile state, but others can. Or that a rock has "no choice at all" (to move), while water, wind, and fire, move freely in ways that solid elements "could never hope to".

If freedom can be analogized to a physical state, then my position is even better. Determinism doesn't even matter. Because at some point, causes are unknown. But it is still known, that physically some elements or "chemical compositions" are freer than others, based on motion, and so too, physically some humans are freer than others.

It's an easy step to make to say that this applies to the mind or soul. If all these premises are accepted, then all the causes that are 'known', don't matter.

Freedom is more inherent than "Determinism". Because Determinism is based only on what humans or cognizant animals know of. But freedom is not dependent upon the consciousness of any human, or any living creature at all.

I believe my position would be as "pre-Socratic" as you can get...

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 11:19 am
by Jakob

to Promethean: 0 - end
to UrWrongx1000: 3:20 - end
to Artimas: 6:55 - end

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:08 pm
by promethean75

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:12 pm
by Jakob
By the way Promethean I respect your recording. I fist recorded no less than three positive responses to it but none of them were elegant and at night I realized there are simply too many points where I object. In the end what I respect is your commitment to your perspective, the practical proof of you going into a courtroom to exhibit it at the cost of some well being makes for a philosophic scene, it could have happened in ancient Greece that way. So that all exempts you from any criticism, you will keep running into walls but not without it meaning something to people around you. A martyr, of sorts - a martyr for the cause of determinism. Which is, I suppose, a clown of sorts. Deliberate or not, it is a common archetype to most of us especially those trying to hide it.

"A clown gives us the reality of our own lives. We can't withstand the onslaught of the world any more than the clown does. We can only follow his example by making the best of it. Smile or smoke as you like, just carry the water."

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:32 pm
by Jakob
promethean75 wrote:

This is quite flawless up to a point.
Beyond this two issues arise
firstly, matter is not empirically indefinitely reducible,
secondly, even as the mechanism of causation is proven to take place, it is not explained why one thing can have an effect on another, without it becoming that thing.

Thus monism immediately becomes chaos-theory. But Spinoza resolves this by positing one supreme monad of which everything is property and attribute. He then arrives at a reflection of this God monad in the form of individual entities, which is this Conatus idea which navigates the two types of causality and indicates the heroic entity. But the question remains, what causes one heroic entity to effect another one without them becoming the same thing?
These different constitutions of inclinations that account for this fact are what is called resistance. Within the concept of resistance, there is the crux to free will, why causation depends on it.
Something stands in its power if it is free to resist.
There is chaos in that, and when one masters the chaos of ones own realm by that inscrutably determined constitution of the empirical self, then one has free will.
And every particle in the void has such free will. But humans and animals and plants do not. Life in general does not possess free will, unless it is detached from its instincts. Japanese warrior code grants moments of free will. Often that comes down to arbitrary seeming sacrifices. But it can also mean a cup of tea poured especially well or writing the future into being from a precarious game with a set of tastes like Nietzsche did.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:45 pm
by Jakob
If things are infinitely reducible to smaller parts there could not be causation. There would be nothing to keep particles together, no inherent resistance except if there is interference between the scales that slow down any changes.
This resistance or limit to empirical physics is the quark, which is a set of shifting "colours", which have certain "apprehensions" of each other that cause them to shift in certain aways and replace each other. Its like a triadic game of hide and seek in a sense. Wax on wax off. There is an empirical consequence to the elemental number of one, which is the number three. We divide our observations up onto a subject, an action and an object, a thing has three dimensions, etc - it is how our mind works. No doubt this is why the quark "is" a triadic mechanism. It is the representation of what which we cannot escape. Except, the Hebrews must have figured, by inventing a quadratic monad.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:51 pm
by Jakob
You can only determine causes by triangulating both cause and effect.
That is no more or less than grounding them in necessity.

Scientific determinism is the reduction of history to that which brings evidence of certain highlighted aspects of the present. All other kinds of determinism are speculative. Meaning that whatever causality one accurately discerns, there is always a larger theatre to worry about.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:00 pm
by Jakob
So, Ill try to leave the thread alive and chill out after this, for determinism to fully account for things you need a closed environment. A closed environment is known to generate entropy in itself. Therefore all non entropic phenomena are acts of free will. Since the universe since the collision we call the Big Bang went from being a turbulent plasma to an orderly system of turbulent plasmas, free will governs the infinite order of time.

Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid, Annuit Coeptis -- a bold enterprise is the only thing that will stand in this cosmos. That is the one final cause of all things. Causation isn't ultimately a local game but one of general demand. Existence is local, but the chains of causation are local, but the particularity of the used chains is not. I assume this has to do with electron spin entanglement, which overturns all ping pong models.

The future is a free cause. The past tries to mimic it as best it can and this attempt is our mind.

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 4:04 pm
by promethean75

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 4:16 pm
by Jakob
Still listening to this but, I agree completely with that thought that the citizen needs to have agreed to a treaty to be morally punished.

"Obliterating power of forgiveness", haha.

Its adding insult to injury to forgive someone for something he didn't consider wrong.

I think 2003 was a year when humanity really saw the nature of the affective nature of the prison system in Abu Grahib.
(The circus itself)

Re: Biological Will

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 4:21 pm
by Jakob
Yes, a convicts enmity towards the state would be lessened if the state were not a hypocrite.

A societies art forms are a remedy for its morality.