-->
@3RU7AL
i find it difficult to believe that someone could choose to be happy about something they personally find obviously tragic
It is probably not an option they perceive.
I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about.
Posts
Total:
292
-->
@3RU7AL
they must always choose the option that is prefered in the moment of decision
Still contradicting yourself.
And you still have not answered why.
Do you know what a syllogism is?
Why dont you put it in syllogistic format and we can see better your argument is.
-->
@MAV99
You are suggesting that. I am pointing out the absurdity in using the word "choosing" to describe your process of determination.
do you think it is fair to say that GPT4 decides or chooses which next word to generate ?
do you think it is fair to say that GOOGLE decides or chooses which links to list in response to your query and also decides or chooses the order of that list ?
-->
@3RU7AL
do you think it is fair to say that GPT4 decides or chooses which next word to generate ?do you think it is fair to say that GOOGLE decides or chooses which links to list in response to your query and also decides or chooses the order of that list ?
No. I do not.
-->
@MAV99
The determination to this particular action.
it sounds like you're suggesting your will is not subject to the universal law of cause-and-effect
-->
@MAV99
Mind you also, I have already said I do not agree with your definition of will.
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?
-->
@MAV99
Do you see a free will walking around without a person attached to it??!?!?!?!
no, i don't see it at all, anywhere
can you show it to me ?
-->
@MAV99
A person makes the choice! That point was not saying free will is the person!
if "free-will" is NOT "the person"
then the "free-will" you are describing cannot be
YOUR WILL
-->
@MAV99
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.
if the defining characteristic of "free-will" is the ability to cause things that are not determined by the universal law of cause-and-effect
then accumulating experience
and processing that accumulated experience in order to apply it in an effective and intelligent manner
is contrary to its defining characteristic
accumulating experience and processing data makes it subject to "previous events" which we commonly refer to as "causes"
-->
@MAV99
It is probably not an option they perceive.
so maybe not exactly fair to say it's an option
-->
@MAV99
Why dont you put it in syllogistic format and we can see better your argument is.
(p1) your intentional conscious will only initiates action (or intentional non-action) in order to achieve a goal
(p2) the goal that motivates your will is an imagined future state that is fully informed by your accumulated knowledge and biological capacity
(p3) humans always have competing, mutually exclusive goals (short-term versus long-term for example) making it necessary to create a hierarchy of goals based on each moment these goals are evaluated (sorted by perceived time-sensitivity and relative cost-benefit based on your accumulated knowledge and current context)
(p4) if you fail to have adequate confidence in your goal hierarchy, no action is taken
(c1) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decision
(c2) if you act without intentional conscious goal seeking, then you are not making an intentional conscious act of will
-->
@3RU7AL
it sounds like you're suggesting your will is not subject to the universal law of cause-and-effect
I am not saying that.
if the defining characteristic of "free-will" is the ability to cause things that are not determined by the universal law of cause-and-effectthen accumulating experienceand processing that accumulated experience in order to apply it in an effective and intelligent manneris contrary to its defining characteristicaccumulating experience and processing data makes it subject to "previous events" which we commonly refer to as "causes"
The free will becomes a part of the primary cause by freely directing it to one of the various possible effects. It is not that it is free of the universal chain but rather it is one of the determining factors that results in a possible effect that the primary cause can cause and continues the universal chain on its way.
If you want, it is the thing that freely says "do this effect." That is why we hold people responsible for their actions. They directed a cause to a positive or negative effect. If the resultant effect was evil, they get punished. As in the case of willfull murder. If the resultant effect was not evil, as in the case of someone choosing a certain burger at the restuarant for the first time, we need not hold them accountable for any evil.
Similarly also, this choice of which effect is intentional. Meaning a person did it. If there is no intention, there is no immediate culpability to the effect. As in the case of motor accidents. Culpability is not determined by the fact that you crashed, it is determined by what you chose to do that caused the crash.
-->
@3RU7AL
no, i don't see it at all, anywherecan you show it to me ?
I do not know if you are intentionally acting like a troll, but I have clearly said elsewhere that they are inseperable in reality and we are talking about them as seperate. When we talk about them concretely in reality we talk about them together.
if "free-will" is NOT "the person"then the "free-will" you are describing cannot beYOUR WILL
You are starting to make think you have not studied logic.
"Free will" as I am describing, is an essential part of the person, but not the person himself. You do know that you can have parts right? I am assuming you already know the different basic parts of your body. Would you say you are your eye? I do not think so.
-->
@3RU7AL
so maybe not exactly fair to say it's an option
Never said it was.
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?
Ability to choose, regardless of influence. Is one definition that I usually speak with.
Another is The intellectual appetite. But that has alot of jargon in it.
Another one if you want The determination of a possible effect from a primary cause based on choice of secondary cause.
I use the first one normally because I think it is the most clear to those who have not studied the philosophy behind free will.
-->
@3RU7AL
(p1) your intentional conscious will only initiates action (or intentional non-action) in order to achieve a goal(p2) the goal that motivates your will is an imagined future state that is fully informed by your accumulated knowledge and biological capacity(p3) humans always have competing, mutually exclusive goals (short-term versus long-term for example) making it necessary to create a hierarchy of goals based on each moment these goals are evaluated (sorted by perceived time-sensitivity and relative cost-benefit based on your accumulated knowledge and current context)(p4) if you fail to have adequate confidence in your goal hierarchy, no action is taken(c1) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decision(c2) if you act without intentional conscious goal seeking, then you are not making an intentional conscious act of will
Firstly, after reading this, I am not convinced you have actually studied logic. The format alone only shows that you have, at best, briefly looked at how a syllogism might look. But, Fine. I will deal with it.
I do not have a problem with premise 1. But for the record, The goal is always outside free will so it is not an essential aspect of it. While the goal is helpful to know better the thing, it does not tell us what the thing is.
I have a problem with your 2nd premise. I do not think that your goal is something imaginary, but rather is an understood possible outcome. Which means it has to do with understanding. Not the imagination.
Premise 3, all you are saying is that there are options. And I would say the hierarchy among options is determined by influences.
Premise 4, look at that! Another option.
Your first conclusion: First problem is that you have, once again, without prooving it, asserted the "must be" which firstly is in none of your premises (first fallacy: adding a term at the conclusion) and secondly no principle is given to back it up. Hence I am still waiting for the "why" behind your "must be" which I asked for already.
Your second conclusion: Has nothing to do with what the premises are saying and is introducing a new idea. That is another fallacy.All you are saying there is that if it is not conscience it is not an act of the will. How does that flow from the premises?
Lastly, This does not answer why free will is a logical-impossibility. All you have done is state some things that you think you know and then labeled them as "premise" and "conclusion"
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you an atheist?deist monist taoist
The burden of proof is on you, prove your metaphysical claims.
-->
@3RU7AL
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.if the defining characteristic of "free-will" is the ability to cause things that are not determined by the universal law of cause-and-effectthen accumulating experienceand processing that accumulated experience in order to apply it in an effective and intelligent manneris contrary to its defining characteristicaccumulating experience and processing data makes it subject to "previous events" which we commonly refer to as "causes"
That is not the defining characteristic of "free-will".
Almost every argument against Free Will presupposes determinism without establishing determinism as a fact. Determinism is not a conclusion of science, on the contrary, science has demonstrated conclusively that reality is not deterministic. The philosophical doctrine of determinism is nothing more than an archaic and failed concept that is unscientific and completely faith based.
The attempt to deny the self-evident experiential reality of human consciousness and the associated fact that we are morally responsible causal agents is a very extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the unfounded and completely faith-based belief in determinism doesn’t constitute extraordinary evidence by any stretch of the imagination.
The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident. Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid. These two aspects of the approach clearly reject the very basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.
Philosophy is concerned with saying something which is true or significant, science with doing something which is effective. Science is about the real world, grounded in perceiving and doing, the argument against Free Will is completely abstract and invalidates both perception and doing, it is a complete rejection of science as valid, and philosophically it amounts to a rejection of the very basis of truth and significance.
In the end, there is no valid basis upon which the rejection of Free Will can be said to be true of reality.
-->
@MAV99
I do not have a problem with premise 1. But for the record, The goal is always outside free will so it is not an essential aspect of it. While the goal is helpful to know better the thing, it does not tell us what the thing is.
the essential claim of "free-will" is that it is somehow NOT caused (or not fully caused)
there is no way to describe "an intentional act of will" without referencing a GOAL (and a goal is a cause)
the definition of will
seems to be in direct conflict with
the definition of "free-will"
-->
@Sidewalker
Almost every argument against Free Will presupposes determinism
this is false
indeterminism is also obviously incompatible with "free-will"
-->
@Sidewalker
The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment,
this approach makes "free-will" indistinguishable from an emotion
sure, we have a feeling of "agency"
but that feeling is no more or less valid than something like "love" or "hate"
-->
@Sidewalker
The burden of proof is on you, prove your metaphysical claims.
MONISM is logically-necessary
because if there are two or more fundamentally dissimilar substances
it is logically-impossible for them to interact in any way or even detect each other
-->
@MAV99
I have a problem with your 2nd premise. I do not think that your goal is something imaginary, but rather is an understood possible outcome. Which means it has to do with understanding. Not the imagination.
you cannot "understand" a potential future
without first IMAGINING a potential future
-->
@MAV99
Premise 3, all you are saying is that there are options. And I would say the hierarchy among options is determined by influences.
ok, so no objection to premise three
-->
@MAV99
Premise 4, look at that! Another option.
premise four is essential in order to illustrate that "choosing not to act" and "inability to act" are not identical
-->
@MAV99
Hence I am still waiting for the "why" behind your "must be" which I asked for already.
premise four
-->
@MAV99
Your second conclusion: Has nothing to do with what the premises are saying and is introducing a new idea. That is another fallacy.All you are saying there is that if it is not conscience it is not an act of the will. How does that flow from the premises?
c2 is supported by p1
-->
@MAV99
Lastly, This does not answer why free will is a logical-impossibility. All you have done is state some things that you think you know and then labeled them as "premise" and "conclusion"
an intentional act of will cannot be free from previous cause
and any unintended consequence of an act of will cannot be considered intentional
in other words
your will is always bound to your identity which is comprised of biology + experience (which qualify as causes)
will is by definition, caused
your intentional action may be imperfect (not achieving your ideal goal)
but that imperfection does not make your will free
-->
@3RU7AL
the essential claim of "free-will" is that it is somehow NOT caused (or not fully caused)there is no way to describe "an intentional act of will" without referencing a GOAL (and a goal is a cause)the definition of willseems to be in direct conflict withthe definition of "free-will"
Then you mistunderstand the definition of "will" and "free"
"will" is the principle of intentional action and "free" is the attribute that says it is not determined to "this particular action"
It is not saying it is free from a cause. It is saying it is free as regarding the choices available to effect.
Did you my post #192?
-->
@3RU7AL
you cannot "understand" a potential futurewithout first IMAGINING a potential future
That doesnt disprove my point that it is still something understood.