Liberty, Freedom & free will. Does nature deny such concepts for humans?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Liberty, Freedom & free will. Does nature deny such concepts for humans?

I can give you that you have an unlimited (except for physics,) freedom of choice.

But that freedom can only be described as the freedom to break the tribal laws you have accepted till that point in time. We are born sheeple and must break our mimic programming.

We are fully free to break those tribal laws that we have lived by, --- but cannot really exercise freedom from their association and biases, both good and evil.

This lack of freedom applies to our bodies. That limit may not apply to minds. We may be able to have free minds, should we choose to. I may have experienced it the one time.

Have you ever been free in either body or spirit? The results?

Freedom vs Security: Freedom at any cost? - YouTube

Regards
DL

 

[Jarhyn]

There are two threads about this in Other Philosophical Discussions.

The consensus is that Libertarian free will does not exist, cannot exist, and is in fact a nonsense concept. It is alleged in fact that it has been proposed in this nonsense way specifically so that people can argue against it as a straw man in an attempt to defend their "hard determinism".

The contention here is whether "free" and "will" can make sense at all in some other definition than the one that is clearly ridiculous.

Definitions have been proposed (by me because I'm the only one that gets that deep in the weeds) which allow math to be done on responsibility in particular. While you may dislike this, I am going to replace "free" and "will" with two other more precise terms. Feel free to utter "free" and "will" when you see them in this conversation, as unless you have a mental block around them, they are functionally the same, assuming you can accept my definitions!

First, we replace 'will':

let ••• be "a list of instructions executing against an interpreter unto a requirement".

I'll still use the term "will", just to be clear. But when I use it:

let 'will' be "shall come to pass".

You might say "well that doesn't seem very much like what I think of when I think of a will: as in 'free will'"

And even so, I bet you don't often think "where A and B are sets, and X is any element of a set, for every X in A AND B, X is in B AND X is in A" when you think =.

For it to make sense, we have to have a definition of free, as this also has a LOT of baggage and I'm on the "math" side, where we check those bags, please:

Let some thing be °°° "When a system shall pass through a given configuration or set of configurations at a given point in time"

This creates an interaction: a °°° ••• is then a set of instructions executed against an interpreter whose requirement shall come to pass.

You might then ask "well, how does °°°, •••, and °°° ••• make any use at all? How Can I use these?"

To understand this, we can imagine a scenario: someone (a dwarf, let's say) is in a room, and currently they hold a ••• in their head. That ••• is: open the door, walk down the hall, open another door, enter the hall, find someone there, and hit them (FIGHT!)

It's a list of instructions unto
a requirement (FIGHT!).

We might ask "is this ••• °°°: shall it come to pass that this dwarf actually fight someone?"

In the scenario, the answer is "no, the door is locked". Therefore "they lack the °°° in their ••• to fight, even if they have the ••• to do so."

So, then, something happens. As a result of this, the dwarf has some event happen in them. The failed ••• to fight gets replaced by a process which, frankly, is not important in the moment. In their new state they have a new requirement: Throw Tantrum, and a new ••• happens. We will call this •••(*).

This •••(*) is: "find all apparently accessible places. For each that contains a thing that can be thrown, broken, etc., add it to a list. Select an object from list. Assemble •••(A): Find path to [object], select destructive act, perform destructive act on [object]"

Note that this terminates in something whose requirement cannot easily fail. This means that •••(*) is necessarily °°°.

Now I can say "the dwarf has a •••(A) held by °°° •••(*)"

This is what is commonly understood when someone asks "does he have free will to act?", As really they are not going to be immediately concerned with whether •••(A) is °°°, though that may be contextually understood in some cases. Mostly, they are asking whether •••(*) was °°°.

There are some situations where •••(*) comes from outside rather than inside. That unspecified even that shoved •••(*) in place? Sometimes it's a gun in someone's face. At that point •••(*) is "do what the guy with the gun says" or simply "live", which subordinates the •••(A) to something not held by °°° ••• but rather imposed •••.

In some ways the •••(*) absent the gun is imposed in it's existence but not in it's operation. There is no "fetch other person's will", no abstraction to external influence at that point. So while it was not within their ••• to be needing to throw a tantrum, and so TANTRUM is not a °°° ••• held by requirements internal to the system... But which tantrum they throw is!

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

 

[steve_bank]

I do know what nature says on this issue. He ,she, or it does not speak to me about it. I don't hear voices.

Our limits is in how our brains are wired as it has evolved.

As this is morality forum, if free will does not exist then can be no crimes. This has been touched on in crime drams regading gnetic predispoitions as a criminal defense.

There is no experiment that can show either case.

Karma is moral causality.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

 

[steve_bank]

One thing is for sure, we have made and do make decision which have consequences.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

This has progressed from umbilical astronomy to mental masturbation.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

This has progressed from umbilical astronomy to mental masturbation.

When you call anything you seem to not like thinking about "mental masturbation", I can pretty much call that the one sure instance of such.

If you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from the systems theory, then you get to dislike the universe itself, I guess.

If you want to spin on a false dichotomy, that if the universe has a single path to walk "god or the devil made me do it" that you did not also choose it for yourself in the moment, then that's a flaw in your own thinking, and it doesn't really matter how small a flaw is, especially when such a flaw resides so close to "ethics".

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

This has progressed from umbilical astronomy to mental masturbation.

When you call anything you seem to not like thinking about "mental masturbation", I can pretty much call that the one sure instance of such.

If you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from the systems theory, then you get to dislike the universe itself, I guess.

If you want to spin on a false dichotomy, that if the universe has a single path to walk "god or the devil made me do it" that you did not also choose it for yourself in the moment, then that's a flaw in your own thinking, and it doesn't really matter how small a flaw is, especially when such a flaw resides so close to "ethics".

I never said I didn't like determinism, or any of its alternatives. I said we can't tell the difference. That is the opposite of a dichotomy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

This has progressed from umbilical astronomy to mental masturbation.

When you call anything you seem to not like thinking about "mental masturbation", I can pretty much call that the one sure instance of such.

If you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from the systems theory, then you get to dislike the universe itself, I guess.

If you want to spin on a false dichotomy, that if the universe has a single path to walk "god or the devil made me do it" that you did not also choose it for yourself in the moment, then that's a flaw in your own thinking, and it doesn't really matter how small a flaw is, especially when such a flaw resides so close to "ethics".

I never said I didn't like determinism, or any of its alternatives. I said we can't tell the difference. That is the opposite of a dichotomy.

So, I don't think at it's limit that there IS a difference, really. Nor that there has to be for free will to survive.

The dichotomy exists in your formulation and presentation of "devil made me do it means I didn't also make me do it."

That's where the dichotomy you invoked lives, and is.

The dichotomy is between "devil made me" and "I made me" specifically.

It can be both, not just "may be either" but "can be both, at the same time".

 

[steve_bank]

You have to interpret what liberterian means.

It repsents hyper male individualism. Unfettered by any govt or structure.

For an example the old John Wayne cowboy movies. The cattle rancher who owns 10s of thousands of acres of land and 100s of thousands of cattle.

The ratioale is ' I buitlt it all by myself' so I don't owe antbody anything and if you tesspass I'll kill you.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

This has progressed from umbilical astronomy to mental masturbation.

When you call anything you seem to not like thinking about "mental masturbation", I can pretty much call that the one sure instance of such.

If you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from the systems theory, then you get to dislike the universe itself, I guess.

If you want to spin on a false dichotomy, that if the universe has a single path to walk "god or the devil made me do it" that you did not also choose it for yourself in the moment, then that's a flaw in your own thinking, and it doesn't really matter how small a flaw is, especially when such a flaw resides so close to "ethics".

I never said I didn't like determinism, or any of its alternatives. I said we can't tell the difference. That is the opposite of a dichotomy.

So, I don't think at it's limit that there IS a difference, really. Nor that there has to be for free will to survive.

The dichotomy exists in your formulation and presentation of "devil made me do it means I didn't also make me do it."

That's where the dichotomy you invoked lives, and is.

The dichotomy is between "devil made me" and "I made me" specifically.

It can be both, not just "may be either" but "can be both, at the same time".

It appears you are working hard to agree with me, while not understanding what I said.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

This has progressed from umbilical astronomy to mental masturbation.

When you call anything you seem to not like thinking about "mental masturbation", I can pretty much call that the one sure instance of such.

If you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from the systems theory, then you get to dislike the universe itself, I guess.

If you want to spin on a false dichotomy, that if the universe has a single path to walk "god or the devil made me do it" that you did not also choose it for yourself in the moment, then that's a flaw in your own thinking, and it doesn't really matter how small a flaw is, especially when such a flaw resides so close to "ethics".

I never said I didn't like determinism, or any of its alternatives. I said we can't tell the difference. That is the opposite of a dichotomy.

So, I don't think at it's limit that there IS a difference, really. Nor that there has to be for free will to survive.

The dichotomy exists in your formulation and presentation of "devil made me do it means I didn't also make me do it."

That's where the dichotomy you invoked lives, and is.

The dichotomy is between "devil made me" and "I made me" specifically.

It can be both, not just "may be either" but "can be both, at the same time".

It appears you are working hard to agree with me, while not understanding what I said.

If we agree on those points, I guess I don't know why you are apparently accusing me of mental masturbation?

Unless you are so accusing those who use determinism as an excuse against free will of mental masturbation, which I wholeheartedly agree with; I have yet to meet a hard determinist who doesn't throw off major sociopathy vibes.

Even so, libertarian free will is still a nonsensical idea.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

This has progressed from umbilical astronomy to mental masturbation.

When you call anything you seem to not like thinking about "mental masturbation", I can pretty much call that the one sure instance of such.

If you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from the systems theory, then you get to dislike the universe itself, I guess.

If you want to spin on a false dichotomy, that if the universe has a single path to walk "god or the devil made me do it" that you did not also choose it for yourself in the moment, then that's a flaw in your own thinking, and it doesn't really matter how small a flaw is, especially when such a flaw resides so close to "ethics".

I never said I didn't like determinism, or any of its alternatives. I said we can't tell the difference. That is the opposite of a dichotomy.

So, I don't think at it's limit that there IS a difference, really. Nor that there has to be for free will to survive.

The dichotomy exists in your formulation and presentation of "devil made me do it means I didn't also make me do it."

That's where the dichotomy you invoked lives, and is.

The dichotomy is between "devil made me" and "I made me" specifically.

It can be both, not just "may be either" but "can be both, at the same time".

It appears you are working hard to agree with me, while not understanding what I said.

If we agree on those points, I guess I don't know why you are apparently accusing me of mental masturbation?

Unless you are so accusing those who use determinism as an excuse against free will of mental masturbation, which I wholeheartedly agree with; I have yet to meet a hard determinist who doesn't throw off major sociopathy vibes.

Even so, libertarian free will is still a nonsensical idea.

Okay, you don't mind umbilical astronomy, but draw the line at mental masturbation. Duly noted.

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

This has progressed from umbilical astronomy to mental masturbation.

When you call anything you seem to not like thinking about "mental masturbation", I can pretty much call that the one sure instance of such.

If you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from the systems theory, then you get to dislike the universe itself, I guess.

If you want to spin on a false dichotomy, that if the universe has a single path to walk "god or the devil made me do it" that you did not also choose it for yourself in the moment, then that's a flaw in your own thinking, and it doesn't really matter how small a flaw is, especially when such a flaw resides so close to "ethics".

I never said I didn't like determinism, or any of its alternatives. I said we can't tell the difference. That is the opposite of a dichotomy.

So, I don't think at it's limit that there IS a difference, really. Nor that there has to be for free will to survive.

The dichotomy exists in your formulation and presentation of "devil made me do it means I didn't also make me do it."

That's where the dichotomy you invoked lives, and is.

The dichotomy is between "devil made me" and "I made me" specifically.

It can be both, not just "may be either" but "can be both, at the same time".

It appears you are working hard to agree with me, while not understanding what I said.

If we agree on those points, I guess I don't know why you are apparently accusing me of mental masturbation?

Unless you are so accusing those who use determinism as an excuse against free will of mental masturbation, which I wholeheartedly agree with; I have yet to meet a hard determinist who doesn't throw off major sociopathy vibes.

Even so, libertarian free will is still a nonsensical idea.

Okay, you don't mind umbilical astronomy, but draw the line at mental masturbation. Duly noted.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

See I raised this point with regards to determinism: one can always generate a determinism from a rolled series. It's "just so" determinism, but a deterministic system nonetheless.

Free will, even so, has to be compatible with the idea of systems theory and the singular present; our universe is quite apparently systemic in behavior, and quite apparently has a singular present, even if it takes a little while for any given locality to catch up with another.

This is why it pays to think about it: so one can make their reasoning a little tighter.

That's all.

Any argument for determinism will degenerate into "the Devil made me do it." Just more umbilical astronomy.

Only hard determinism. Libertarian free will is a belief in actual pure nonsense.

Compatibilism acknowledges that libertarian free will is nonsense, and that while all things logically flow from prior events, those prior events logically flowed into the present, which contains, now, as a result, you the person making decisions.

I'll go back to my original post in the thread: just because the dwarf must have always failed to open the door does not revoke that part of what made him such that he must have failed was his own freely held will to try.

It doesn't matter if the devil or God made you do it at the beginning of time, insofar as it was still you that was the thing doing it when you did it, with the devil absentee on it since the beginning of time.

This has progressed from umbilical astronomy to mental masturbation.

When you call anything you seem to not like thinking about "mental masturbation", I can pretty much call that the one sure instance of such.

If you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from the systems theory, then you get to dislike the universe itself, I guess.

If you want to spin on a false dichotomy, that if the universe has a single path to walk "god or the devil made me do it" that you did not also choose it for yourself in the moment, then that's a flaw in your own thinking, and it doesn't really matter how small a flaw is, especially when such a flaw resides so close to "ethics".

I never said I didn't like determinism, or any of its alternatives. I said we can't tell the difference. That is the opposite of a dichotomy.

So, I don't think at it's limit that there IS a difference, really. Nor that there has to be for free will to survive.

The dichotomy exists in your formulation and presentation of "devil made me do it means I didn't also make me do it."

That's where the dichotomy you invoked lives, and is.

The dichotomy is between "devil made me" and "I made me" specifically.

It can be both, not just "may be either" but "can be both, at the same time".

It appears you are working hard to agree with me, while not understanding what I said.

If we agree on those points, I guess I don't know why you are apparently accusing me of mental masturbation?

Unless you are so accusing those who use determinism as an excuse against free will of mental masturbation, which I wholeheartedly agree with; I have yet to meet a hard determinist who doesn't throw off major sociopathy vibes.

Even so, libertarian free will is still a nonsensical idea.

Okay, you don't mind umbilical astronomy, but draw the line at mental masturbation. Duly noted.

Well, you can add all the insults you like to the desire to bring various forms of loose philosophy down into a math on axiomatic principles, but it's not going to earn you any friends.

Libertarian free will simply does not make sense as a concept in the first place, and part of the reason I am here in this thread is to make that clear.

Just-so determinism is as if you were to imagine a system with a fixed seed on the RNG: the rolls are part of the deterministic system.

I've argued extensively that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in fact demands that we can be at best stochastic modelers of determinism, and so we cannot possibly operate without risk of the failure of a will, at least in the thread specifically about free will.

This creates a world where we have to gin up wills, figure out whether they "could be" free, and operate on them while checking whether they were free after all, and doing something else when they aren't.

My point is that this is all observably real and objective in a materialist world. It requires no freedom from causal necessity at all to be free of impediments, especially when the will was specifically retained so that it is free BECAUSE of causal necessity.

Libertarian free will is the false imagining that one must be capable of having done something other than they did in order to be free, that one must not be bound in a deterministic system so as to act "freely".

The OP drips of this concept, and it is a concept that may roundly be rejected, especially since it makes actually doing any kind of "hard" operation on these concepts impossible due to the contradictions therein.

The hard operation occurs in how these concepts relate to more mathematical approaches to ethics re: game theory.

I would rather take ethics from philosophy and bring it over to math, so that's what I throw my life at, and I'm having quite a bit more success than people expected me to have. Please quit acting shitty about that goal.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

There are two threads about this in Other Philosophical Discussions.

The consensus is that Libertarian free will does not exist, cannot exist, and is in fact a nonsense concept. It is alleged in fact that it has been proposed in this nonsense way specifically so that people can argue against it as a straw man in an attempt to defend their "hard determinism".

The contention here is whether "free" and "will" can make sense at all in some other definition than the one that is clearly ridiculous.

Definitions have been proposed (by me because I'm the only one that gets that deep in the weeds) which allow math to be done on responsibility in particular. While you may dislike this, I am going to replace "free" and "will" with two other more precise terms. Feel free to utter "free" and "will" when you see them in this conversation, as unless you have a mental block around them, they are functionally the same, assuming you can accept my definitions!

First, we replace 'will':

let ••• be "a list of instructions executing against an interpreter unto a requirement".

I'll still use the term "will", just to be clear. But when I use it:

let 'will' be "shall come to pass".

You might say "well that doesn't seem very much like what I think of when I think of a will: as in 'free will'"

And even so, I bet you don't often think "where A and B are sets, and X is any element of a set, for every X in A AND B, X is in B AND X is in A" when you think =.

For it to make sense, we have to have a definition of free, as this also has a LOT of baggage and I'm on the "math" side, where we check those bags, please:

Let some thing be °°° "When a system shall pass through a given configuration or set of configurations at a given point in time"

This creates an interaction: a °°° ••• is then a set of instructions executed against an interpreter whose requirement shall come to pass.

You might then ask "well, how does °°°, •••, and °°° ••• make any use at all? How Can I use these?"

To understand this, we can imagine a scenario: someone (a dwarf, let's say) is in a room, and currently they hold a ••• in their head. That ••• is: open the door, walk down the hall, open another door, enter the hall, find someone there, and hit them (FIGHT!)

It's a list of instructions unto
a requirement (FIGHT!).

We might ask "is this ••• °°°: shall it come to pass that this dwarf actually fight someone?"

In the scenario, the answer is "no, the door is locked". Therefore "they lack the °°° in their ••• to fight, even if they have the ••• to do so."

So, then, something happens. As a result of this, the dwarf has some event happen in them. The failed ••• to fight gets replaced by a process which, frankly, is not important in the moment. In their new state they have a new requirement: Throw Tantrum, and a new ••• happens. We will call this •••(*).

This •••(*) is: "find all apparently accessible places. For each that contains a thing that can be thrown, broken, etc., add it to a list. Select an object from list. Assemble •••(A): Find path to [object], select destructive act, perform destructive act on [object]"

Note that this terminates in something whose requirement cannot easily fail. This means that •••(*) is necessarily °°°.

Now I can say "the dwarf has a •••(A) held by °°° •••(*)"

This is what is commonly understood when someone asks "does he have free will to act?", As really they are not going to be immediately concerned with whether •••(A) is °°°, though that may be contextually understood in some cases. Mostly, they are asking whether •••(*) was °°°.

There are some situations where •••(*) comes from outside rather than inside. That unspecified even that shoved •••(*) in place? Sometimes it's a gun in someone's face. At that point •••(*) is "do what the guy with the gun says" or simply "live", which subordinates the •••(A) to something not held by °°° ••• but rather imposed •••.

In some ways the •••(*) absent the gun is imposed in it's existence but not in it's operation. There is no "fetch other person's will", no abstraction to external influence at that point. So while it was not within their ••• to be needing to throw a tantrum, and so TANTRUM is not a °°° ••• held by requirements internal to the system... But which tantrum they throw is!

I would like to argue with you, but you have to shorten your reply and get more focused on what you are replying to.

"let 'will' be "shall come to pass".

Let that will of mine come to pass.

Our definitions are not far off.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Maybe every action and subsequent reaction in the Universe is predetermined, and maybe it's not.

If it is predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

If it is not predetermined, our ability to know what is going to happen next is limited by our knowledge of the past and speculative projection.

It is all a pointless exercise in umbilical astronomy.

We determine our future by will and choice, to whatever limits we have.

We know we control portions of the universe at a small scale.

Moving fingers move huge volumes of space time, --- if measured from a given position and scale.

Regards
DL