Philosophy Now Forum

Alright, in respect, i'll copy and paste and read it.
Thanks for the thoughtful consideration.

Ammend; All right, I have read both paragraphs.
Thanx again.

peace

Addendum;
You might be interested in this site (many thinkers here might) of which the following paper is just one feature:
Transcending Determinism: Transcendent Freedom vs. Naive Freewill Thinking

My bad, it was Koran (14:22). It has been quite awhile...


I just stumbled on something that you might find relevent to your thoughts here, from yet another angle;
"The less familiar point is that H&H free will is impossible even if determinism is false."
An Identity of My Own

"To have free will is to have the ability to 'do otherwise'. In the history of planet earth no being has ever 'done otherwise'."

I liked that line.

Sure but beliefs don't kill people, people kill people. You are blaming the tool.

Unless you really are working with the full universe then you are what part of the universe you can grasp. Or I mean I can see that you think there is no 'I' and therefore no will. But I am not playing that game for lots of practical reasons.

Digression: This is why I don't think you participate in threads. It's not that you aren't smart or attracting attention or generating thoughtful posts but you didn't engage in the thread, you meta it. Let's look at the thread's title "Is free will impossible?" Now I think unwritten is that there is an I. So you just attacked the man and not the ball. It's like playing a game of chess and moving your king to checkmate because you are physically stronger. Or to remain philosophical it's like someone posting about their knowledge of cats and someone replying that really we can't know anything. Finally if you can disprove something without 'meta'ing it then I think it weighs a lot more. I won't mention this again as I've done so twice

I'll read it. Thanks for the link.

Thank you, “nameless”, for that link. Not had time to reflect on all of it yet, but I very much liked reading it.

There are many thoughts I recognize from my own way of thinking [always pleasant ], though I believe I deal with things slightly differently nowadays. I say nowadays, because the way I handle my conclusions – what I do with them, I mean – has changed many times over the years.

I liked the question of whether "God" has free will, for I remember the thought of it not being so; considering will as something that came with “The Divine’s” manifestation of particulars (e.g. us) instead. Regardless, I believe Its only type of will, the one of self-comprehension (in relation to Chaos).

I stopped briefly around the following:

“The enlightened mind can attain and gain ‘the true, transcendent type of free will’ but only by emphatically rejecting ‘the false, deluded type of free will’”.

I am sure it is so, but as I suspect this “free-will-delusions” in man, an effect (or part) of the “study” in hypothetical implications, of theoretical laws to physical existence, that I believe is “god’s” only activity, I sometimes wonder whether our delusions perhaps be of necessity to the task in itself? In any case I fear, I am uncomfortable with viewing “illusions” that so many believe are reality, as evil errors of sin… I am almost sure it makes no difference to “God” or Its “study”, whether individuals only believe in egos and physical surroundings or not.

Bye for now and once again, thanks for sharing,


Hermit

Ps. I know it is rhetorical tradition in these sort of texts, but are you not the least bit bothered by the talk of lower/higher thinkers, etc?

If there were no guns (to which your argument most often is applied), there would be no gunshot deaths.
The 'gun' analogy falls short, though, as the mere posession of the gun does not 'compel' the owner to shoot anyone (generally speaking), but the mere harboring of a 'strong belief' compels the 'believer' to act!


There is an 'I' revealed by the perception of the egoPerspective. It exists in 'thoughts'/ego, which is where 'free-will' exists.
Local pragmatics are features of the complete Whole Universe. Just because 'local' realities (our 'personal' bodies, for instance) appear to be isolated from 'non-local' realities does not mean that all is not functionally related/connected.
The more one focuses down on any one feature of Reality, the less one perceives of everything/anything else!
Because we (individually) do not perceive something does not deny it's existence, or our 'effect' on it. Our ignorance of that which is beyond our perception is a 'feature of Reality' which must be (philosophically) remembered.


Thank you.
By way of elucidation, it might seem as you describe to you, but please consider the following;
I have a very good (the only, as far as I understand) ToE (Theory of Everything) that is all inclusive; incorporating every Perspective, every argument, everything that exists (which is everything).
Various threads, various topics (and the included arguments) will/can either refute some feature of my theory (or the entire thing), or it is assimilated and explained by said theory.
So, what I do is to examine the topic variables in light of my theory; does it refute? can it be smoothly assimilated/explained? Perhaps an old variable is simply re-examined for clarity.
Examining a 'Theory' as such is a constant and ongoing process as, perhaps, new data and evidence might arise that might require reevaluation or abandonment of said Theory. So far, it stands, and stands strong. And, I am offering it (for examination and potential refutation here/worldwide), free of charge, along with the thought processes involved in the understanding of that 'ToE'.
A real and valid 'ToE' is a 'meta' spotlight in which to examine everything; all evidence, all thoughts, all arguments, all aspects of perceived 'Reality'.
In this light, do I so examine all offerings. Some things are considered so 'trivial' or 'no brainer' that i pass it by quickly (perhaps to the detriment of the Theory), and some things require much thoughtful examination. This 'process' constantly hones my thoughts and understandings and, if there is a 'why', this is the 'why' of that which you are perceiving and complaining.
I hope that this clarifies a bit.


You're welcome.
Enjoy.

Glad you liked it, you're wecome.


Uh, I didn't read the article, but there is only one Mind as far as I understand. The 'mind' as is commonly used appears to refer to 'thoughts'/ego.
I also do not hang with the notion of 'delusions'. Every Perspective is unique and some see that which others do not, that does not make them 'deluded' but as judged from certain Perspectives. What I perceive and what you perceive are both valif and real features of the complete Universe/Reality/existence.


Some people see things in that context, I do not. Seems like vanity to me, egoPerspective.
We perceive thoughts, we are not the originators or the creators of the thoughts perceived; who is considered a 'thinker' is merely someone who perceives thoughts. I find it philosophically erroneous to 'judge' the 'thinker' rather than appraising the thoughts apprehended.
At a quick glance, there is much in the article that I find problematic, but critiquing it was not the purpose of my offering it, it was for your enjoyment and thoughtful examination; it was offered as possible food for thought.

nameless
Nameless



You say many interesting things, and the above is another example. If you refrain from judging the thinker you presumably also refrain from judging your 'self' as well.

Perhaps the thoughts that happen to you are just perceptions and of no particular import, that is, when compared to other perceptions.

I for one would be interested in some of the psychological/emotional consequences of this detachment from yourself, which I can only assume must be positive.

I'm sure you consider autobiography to be egoic and vain, but perhaps you might be persuaded to write more about yourself, what it's like to be you, how it feels etc?

best, Nikolai

This is true.


The entire Universe, ever, is 'just' perceptions...
Yes, the 'thoughts' that I perceive are perceptions. I wouldn't use 'just', as all perceptions (of all perceivers, Conscious Perspectives, us) are real and existent and features of the complete Universe/existence/Reality.
Some perceptions feel to be of more or less 'import' at times, depending on the perceptions, whether of a hamburger or a thought. Ultimately, it is only within thought/ego that one can discern 'import' (subject/object distinctions).


Heh... How can 'I' be detached from myself? 'I' am myself (the common egoically defined 'self')!
I also perceive that which is seen by the egoPerspective as 'myself', yet that which perceives cannot be called an 'I', not a 'who', but a 'what'; Conscious Perspective (of Mind). Hence no 'I' to do the perceiving, but perception 'is'.
Perhaps if you rephrased your questions, and perhaps PM might be more appropriate as it would be off-topic here and of a 'personal' (egoic) nature.


I think that many would call their lives a 'positive' experience, when peering from ego eyes (discerning/judging). Same for 'negative'. Actually I'd say that a 'bell curve' seems a reasonable model, and that we all occupy the entire curve, depending the moment of observation!
'Positive' is in the eye of the beholder (and dependent on the moment of observation; no one the 'same' from moment to moment) and I am not feeling too egoic at the moment.


'Surity' is always tricky philosophical footing. Just ask the question.

A complete 'autobiography' would be inclusive of the entire complete Universe; all moments/percepts, ever, of existence. What would be refered to from a linearPerspective as all past, now, and all future moments of existence.
No one can write a complete 'autobiography', obviously, but one can relate an observation of the present perceptions of 'thoughts'/'memories' from one Perspective, a 'true and 'real' feature of 'Truth/Reality.


See above. You writing "what it's like to be you", Nikolai, is a feature of the complete 'autobiography', like everyone else. 'Within' us each is all that is human, and oh, so much more!
peace

Even if you don't agree that the Big Bang created everything then Free Will is still impossible. The very idea of free will is a contradiction to absolutely everything, because everything in life is either nature (meaning things humans cant control) and nurture (things humans can control.)

We are not to blame for either nature or nurture. We cannot be to blame or be punished for qualities or circumstances we were born with/in.
Neither can we be blamed for thing that have happened because of nurture.

Eg: I wrote this comment today because of a mixture of things. 1. Was my interest in Philosophy (which ive gained from a mixture of nature and nurture) 2. was my good mood that I am in because of the good day Ive had, which is a mixture of sunshine, nature, and having fun with friends, nurture. Even if their was a bad point to commenting (such as having to spend my time doing it-not that id be doing anything better anyway) then my wanting to submit a comment would've still won out over all because they are more important then the 5 secs i spend writting this.

Though, Im sure you'll all have noticed by now that in my explanation I have seriously contradicted myself by saying that nature and nurture are different (because both stem from the first moment in time, like James was saying) and I've written at the top the words "things humans can control" as ive just tried to explain why nothing can be controlled.

Sorry ive just repeated everything james had already put in a much simpler way but i thought i'd attempt to explain it slightly differently.- Anyway you cant blame me cos everything is set in stone and i didnt have any free will to not submit this badly written comment!!

H

Actually you wrote nothing. Molecules collided etc. You might enjoy not participating in philosophy so enjoy your position but your position denies you everything - it denies you.

No, but we can make sound theories about what phenomena cause what effects and use them for as long as they work.

It's possible that everything just happens randomly and it just happens to appear to be deterministic and that the universe can diverge from this pattern at any instant and become completely unintelligible.

False and false, as I explained above. Also free will cannot be held rationally no matter what alternatives existed because it is self-refuting, as explained many times.

I think the remark about using theories as long as they work is key here. Cognitive scientists have identified specific sets of mental modules – similar in function to software modules – that operate in different areas. We have a set of methods to deal with physical objects and another set to deal with agents, and the two are not the same. Both physical causation and agent causation – the idea that agents do things of their own volition not entirely determined by prior physical causes – are built into the machinery of our minds, presumably for very good evolutionary reasons: our ancestors who thought this way had more offspring than their contemporaries who didn’t. So we have two ways of knowing, both built into our perceptual apparatus. Which one is true? The answer is: both. Both provide useful and accurate ways of understanding, predicting and controlling aspects of reality. They each have their area of application, and humans have used them successfully for hundreds of thousands of years. Within its area of application – understanding, influencing and getting along with other people – the idea of free will is quite sensible.

I treat this idea in more detail here:

http://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/FreeWill.html