I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about.

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
tsaafw
intp
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 292
Topic's author
#151
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
The fact is that you can choose. Even what is not your preferred option.
you're conflating "the best option you can imagine"

with

"the best real option available to you in the moment"

your will cannot take action or willfully withhold action without motive


without violating the definition of "will"
#152
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
without violating the definition of "will"
And what is the definition of will? According to you?

your will cannot take action or willfully withhold action without motive
I never disagreed with this. I am saying it free to do one or the other.

you're conflating "the best option you can imagine"

with

"the best real option available to you in the moment"
No I am not.
Topic's author
#153
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
And what is the definition of will? According to you?
intentional goal seeking in service of desire
Topic's author
#154
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
I never disagreed with this. I am saying it free to do one or the other.
will can never be free from desire
#155
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
will can never be free from desire
I never disagreed with this.

intentional goal seeking in service of desire
That is not how I would define it.

I already gave my definition and explanation of it.

This conversation is now just going in circles.
Topic's author
#156
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
will can never be free from desire
I never disagreed with this.
ipso facto, no such thing as a "free-will"
#157
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
will can never be free from desire
I never disagreed with this.
ipso facto, no such thing as a "free-will"

You keep jumping between two meanings of "free" to try and prove your point. That is is a fallacy

Do you have any idea how fustrating it is to talk to people like that?

I never said the will was free of its influences.
I said it was still free to choose regardless of them.

Have you ever studied logic? It does not seem like you have.
Topic's author
#158
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
I said it was still free to choose regardless of them.
it is impossible to choose something freely

if your will is goal seeking
#159
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
it is impossible to choose something freely

if your will is goal seeking
There are always more than one goal. So yes, it can choose freely.
Topic's author
#160
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
There are always more than one goal. So yes, it can choose freely.

there is always a hierarchy of choices

and you must always choose the one you think is the best at that juncture
#161
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
and you must always choose the one you think is the best at that juncture
Why MUST you?


Topic's author
#162
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Why MUST you?

one option must always be prefered

otherwise

you could never choose one



the only alternative would be to presume you RANDOMLY select between available options

and a RANDOM decision can never be an act of WILL
#163
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
one option must always be prefered
I disagree.
Why does an option have to be preferred?
What about having motives means one must be preferred over the other?

Not to mention what you said does not follow logically.
Topic's author
#164
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
What about having motives means one must be preferred over the other?
do you think it is fair to say that when you have a goal, this limits, this constrains your active options ?

and within the scope of the options (including non-action) each has apparent pros and cons ?

so, let's imagine you've narrowed down the selection to two distinct options that seem roughly equivalent

do you go with your "gut-instinct" (intuitive biology + subconscious experience) ?

or do you have conscious intentional REASONS for selecting one action over the other ?


OR


do you select essentially AT RANDOM ?
Topic's author
#165
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Not to mention what you said does not follow logically.
please be slightly more specific
#166
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
do you think it is fair to say that when you have a goal, this limits, this constrains your active options ?
Yes.
and within the scope of the options (including non-action) each has apparent pros and cons ?

so, let's imagine you've narrowed down the selection to two distinct options that seem roughly equivalent
Ok, sounds fine.

do you go with your "gut-instinct" (intuitive biology + subconscious experience) ?

or do you have conscious intentional REASONS for selecting one action over the other ?


OR


do you select essentially AT RANDOM ?
Why can't all three be options that you freely choose?

Do we agree that free will is a cause and not an effect?

When a cause that is not free causes it must cause what it is most inclined towards.

But a cause that is free, by definition of free, must have at least two options without determination to one or the other. This free cause must also be intelligent. (Different argument). So it already has two elements by its very nature namely personhood and causality. The two concepts are one in reality, so when the free will chooses it is the person choosing. He is not free as regards his influences. But he is free regarding his choice of responding to his influences.

Take a very simple example. 
A football player is sick. He has his championship game that day.
He can choose to opt out. 
Or
He can choose to toughen up and play the game.
He is was not free as regards him being sick. But he was free to choose how to responded to it.

#167
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
one option must always be prefered

otherwise

you could never choose one
You are defying the very definition of "choosing" while actively trying to use it.

If there is no choice there is no choosing. So you cannot use the word "choosing" to describe your process of the will determining.

Topic's author
#168
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Why can't all three be options that you freely choose?
because none of these options are "free" because they are all constrained

when you say "free"

what exactly is your will "free" from ?
Topic's author
#169
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Do we agree that free will is a cause and not an effect?

i'm not sure "free-will" even exists

and if something is logically-impossible

it follows

that it can never be considered "a cause"
Topic's author
#170
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
When a cause that is not free causes it must cause what it is most inclined towards.
certainly

that's the function of will

it is goal-seeking
Topic's author
#171
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
so when the free will chooses it is the person choosing.

if the "free-will" is unconstrained by "self" also known as "identity" also known as "biology + experience"

then NO

the "free-will" is NOT "the person"
Topic's author
#172
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
This free cause must also be intelligent

please explain
Topic's author
#173
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
But he is free regarding his choice of responding to his influences.
i find it difficult to believe that someone could choose to be happy about something they personally find obviously tragic
Topic's author
#174
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
He is was not free as regards him being sick. But he was free to choose how to responded to it.

they must always choose the option that is prefered in the moment of decision
Topic's author
#175
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
you cannot use the word "choosing" to describe your process of the will determining

are you suggesting your will does not make decisions ?
#176
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
you cannot use the word "choosing" to describe your process of the will determining

are you suggesting your will does not make decisions ?

No.

You are suggesting that. I am pointing out the absurdity in using the word "choosing" to describe your process of determination.
#177
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
what exactly is your will "free" from ?
The determination to this particular action.
#178
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
and if something is logically-impossible

it follows

that it can never be considered "a cause"

Feel free, with your pristine logic, to explain using all the proper rules of logic why "free will" is logically impossible.

Mind you also, I have already said I do not agree with your definition of will.
#179
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
if the "free-will" is unconstrained by "self" also known as "identity" also known as "biology + experience"

then NO

the "free-will" is NOT "the person"

Oh come on!
Do you see a free will walking around without a person attached to it??!?!?!?!

A person makes the choice! That point was not saying free will is the person!
#180
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 235
1
2
6
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
This free cause must also be intelligent

please explain

In order to perceive the different grades of being, one must have the ability to understand them. The different grades of being give way to the strength of influences on a person. Intellectual understanding is the attribute of humans, the rational animal.