-->
@MAV99
That doesnt disprove my point that it is still something understood.
it is rather difficult to suggest "i understand the future"
is equivalent to the much more plausible suggestion "i imagine the future"
I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about.
Posts
Total:
292
-->
@3RU7AL
Hence I am still waiting for the "why" behind your "must be" which I asked for already.premise four
Premise four does not answer why.
Premise four said: "if you fail to have adequate confidence in your goal hierarchy, no action is taken"
This considers all options as a whole.
your "must be" is directed only to the foremost option.
Non sequitur
Composition
-->
@MAV99
"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.
the number of options apparently available to you when considering action to attain a goal
those options
are limited
by your ability to imagine them
based on your biology and experience
and your ability to sort those options into a hierarchy of options
is also limited
by your ability to imagine which one is the best
based on your biology and experience
-->
@3RU7AL
an intentional act of will cannot be free from previous causeand any unintended consequence of an act of will cannot be considered intentionalin other wordsyour will is always bound to your identity which is comprised of biology + experience (which qualify as causes)will is by definition, causedyour intentional action may be imperfect (not achieving your ideal goal)but that imperfection does not make your will free
biology and experiance are material causes. They have their effects on the person choosing. But because the will is part of the formal cause, biology and experiance do not determine the will directly. They can only influence it.
And I disagree that your identity is "biology+experiance"
-->
@3RU7AL
it is rather difficult to suggest "i understand the future"is equivalent to the much more plausible suggestion "i imagine the future"
That is not what I said.
I said We can understand future possible effects.
-->
@MAV99
biology and experiance are material causes. They have their effects on the person choosing. But because the will is part of the formal cause, biology and experiance do not determine the will directly. They can only influence it.
what percentage of your will, roughly speaking, would you guess is influenced by your biology + experience ?
-->
@MAV99
And I disagree that your identity is "biology+experiance"
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?
-->
@MAV99
I said We can understand future possible effects.
i still think it's much more accurate to say we can imagine future possible effects
saying we can understand suggests some comprehensive knowledge
of something which, in this case, by definition does not currently exist
-->
@MAV99
your "must be" is directed only to the foremost option.
the entire construct describes an act of will
you must act
otherwise we're not talking about an act of will
would you perhaps prefer
(IFF) an intentional act of will is initiated (THEN) 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
-->
@MAV99
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.
how would you describe these types of sorting functions ?
and how would you contrast them with how you describe human sorting functions ?
-->
@MAV99
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.
the will is not a primary cause
the will is always contingent
the will is caused
it sounds like you're suggesting "the will is free to choose between options" but those options are never equal
and even when the available options might appear to be roughly equal
choosing between roughly equal options is not properly described as "an intentional act of will"
it's just a roll-of-the-dice at that point
indistinguishable from random
and a random selection is not an intentional act of will
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.
you keep using the word "freely" without indicating what exactly you believe it is "free" from
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.
well, there is still "criminal negligence"
and "driving while intoxicated"
so, lack-of-intention is not exactly a moral "free-pass"
-->
@MAV99
"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.
if you act intentionally that action is said to be your action
when you act intentionally YOU are taking action
YOU are acting
"an act of will" does not exist without YOU
-->
@MAV99
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?Ability to choose, regardless of influence. Is one definition that I usually speak with.
this sounds like a violation of cause-and-effect
-->
@3RU7AL
what percentage of your will, roughly speaking, would you guess is influenced by your biology + experience ?
The will is a simple thing. There is no percentage of it that you can give.
As far as the influences they are there affecting the will "by their known presence" is a way I read about it once.
Much like how you would here a child screaming.
-->
@3RU7AL
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?
Intellect and will
-->
@3RU7AL
i still think it's much more accurate to say we can imagine future possible effectssaying we can understand suggests some comprehensive knowledgeof something which, in this case, by definition does not currently exist
That is why we are forced to say possible effects. We can know based reason, order, etc the effects. We do not know them as actually existing, we know them as possibly existing.
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) an intentional act of will is initiated (THEN) 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
Do you know what the conditions for an absolute necessity in logic?
All you have done is insist on the "must be" You have not proven it. If you can give me a well done actual syllogism proving the "must be" that might clear this up.
-->
@3RU7AL
how would you describe these types of sorting functions ?and how would you contrast them with how you describe human sorting functions ?
Programming.
There is no conscience intentions in computers.
-->
@3RU7AL
choosing between roughly equal options is not properly described as "an intentional act of will"
Why?
You will say: "it must choose the best option"
You are still insisting on your contradiction...
-->
@3RU7AL
you keep using the word "freely" without indicating what exactly you believe it is "free" from
There is a difference between "free from" and "free to do"
I thought that was made clear already...
There are different senses to the word "free" It does not necessarily mean "free from"
-->
@3RU7AL
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?Ability to choose, regardless of influence. Is one definition that I usually speak with.this sounds like a violation of cause-and-effect
Then I am thinking you misunderstand what cause is.
There are different types of causes. External and internal.
Influences are external causes and therefore can only indirectly affect the subject. The will is of the internal cause, namely the formal one. It can act independant of external causes.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you an atheist?deist monist taoist
LOL, yes, he's a monist Taoist, everything emanates from the interplay of the yin and the yin.
This kid is a hoot.
-->
@MAV99
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?Intellect and will
what part of "intellect and will" are not included in biology + experience ?
-->
@MAV99
That is why we are forced to say possible effects. We can know based reason, order, etc the effects. We do not know them as actually existing, we know them as possibly existing.
we can only imagine "possible effects"
-->
@MAV99
(IFF) an intentional act of will is initiated (THEN) you must always take the (perceived) best action to achieve your current goal based on the information available to you in the moment of decisionDo you know what the conditions for an absolute necessity in logic?
the term itself "intentional act of will"
requires an action
there is no "intentional act of will"
without action
-->
@MAV99
how would you describe these types of sorting functions ?and how would you contrast them with how you describe human sorting functions ?Programming.There is no conscience intentions in computers.
computer programs are definitely "goal seeking"
and computer programs certainly "make a choice"
-->
@MAV99
choosing between roughly equal options is not properly described as "an intentional act of will"Why?You will say: "it must choose the best option"You are still insisting on your contradiction...
what is essentially a "roll-of-the-dice"
does not qualify
as an "intentional act of will"
-->
@MAV99
There are different senses to the word "free" It does not necessarily mean "free from"
what in god's name is the difference between "freely choose"
and
"choose"
-->
@MAV99
The will is of the internal cause, namely the formal one. It can act independant of external causes.
"internal causes" are fully comprised of biology + experience ("external causes")
-->
@3RU7AL
what would you add to biology + experience in order to complete your identity ?Intellect and willwhat part of "intellect and will" are not included in biology + experience ?
The intellect and will are not included in biology plus experiance.
Biology plus experiance is material.
Intellect and will is not.