Free Will As Determinism

[Eodnhoj7]

All acts of free will, in the respect that one applies a choice, not only requires a structure from which the choice is both formed and continued (for example I like donuts because they taste good therefore I buy a donut. The structure of the donut having a specific sensation is the means from which the choice manifests, while me eating it repeats this sensation as a structure) but is a structure itself.

1) Free will cannot exist without structure as all acts of free will require the ability to make a choice with this choice being one of structure that is both composed of further structure and composes further structure, hence free will acts as an ever present cause.

2) Free will fundamentally lies in observation as a form of measurement where an act is fundamentally premised in an observation. I see, feel, hear, etc. (observe) a reality and in turn act on that observation to form a new observation. This observation in turn reflects on not just the other observations but provides the premise of choice relative to further actions. I may observe x and y and act through either x or y to form a new action. For example I may observe that I like donuts, but that donuts are bad for my health, hence I may either not eat the donut and care about my health, ignore my health and eat the donut, or just eat part of the donut. Whatever action I take in turn forms a new observation from which further action exists.

3) Free will observes a connection, hence acts as a point in itself from which further measurements exist. I may choose one thing, consciously through thought or intuitively through habit, which in turn leads to another choice which repeats itself so on and so forth as ever present. In these respects free will is less of an observation of extremes but rather an act of mediation through from which structure extends through and is maintained.

[Impenitent]

one can still deny structure freely...

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

one can still deny structure freely...

-Imp

Thanks for putting that in the structure of a sentence.

[Impenitent]

I did it freely

-Imp

[SpheresOfBalance]

All acts of free will, in the respect that one applies a choice, not only requires a structure from which the choice is both formed and continued (for example I like donuts because they taste good therefore I buy a donut. The structure of the donut having a specific sensation is the means from which the choice manifests, while me eating it repeats this sensation as a structure) but is a structure itself.

1) Free will cannot exist without structure as all acts of free will require the ability to make a choice with this choice being one of structure that is both composed of further structure and composes further structure, hence free will acts as an ever present cause.

2) Free will fundamentally lies in observation as a form of measurement where an act is fundamentally premised in an observation. I see, feel, hear, etc. (observe) a reality and in turn act on that observation to form a new observation. This observation in turn reflects on not just the other observations but provides the premise of choice relative to further actions. I may observe x and y and act through either x or y to form a new action. For example I may observe that I like donuts, but that donuts are bad for my health, hence I may either not eat the donut and care about my health, ignore my health and eat the donut, or just eat part of the donut. Whatever action I take in turn forms a new observation from which further action exists.

3) Free will observes a connection, hence acts as a point in itself from which further measurements exist. I may choose one thing, consciously through thought or intuitively through habit, which in turn leads to another choice which repeats itself so on and so forth as ever present. In these respects free will is less of an observation of extremes but rather an act of mediation through from which structure extends through and is maintained.

It's not enough to keep bringing up structure as some sort of prime mover. Instead one much ask oneself what built the structure, the physics of the universe or the mind. It's the "chain" of causals that come into question, not simply "causals." And to believe in the ever connected chain of causals, as is determinism, falls flat on it's face when confronted with the latest theory of the prime mover as being a singularity, one can't simply stop the chain based upon "I don't know, I guess something came from nothing!" The chain can't have an end or a beginning. This is yet another case of mans current ignorance not allowing any definitive solution with any amount of certainty. And if you are one that says he buys into the uncertainty principle, how can you be certain of your solution on the question of free will?

Instead of choosing a doughnut, which for at least some, can be addictive, try using the choice of a particular path at a fork in the road.

You chose to believe in determinism, or indeterminacies, probably so as to shirk responsibility for your actions. You probably believe that you can do anything, if you can pass responsibility off on the universe; a common immature solution.

I understand that the chain of determinism becomes fuzzy after the appearance of the animal brain. That the limited amount of free will we have starts there. That the universe can cause a brain to exist and be capable of thinking, with some chance thrown in of course, but it can't necessarily cause any particular thought. And this is why throughout philosophy there are long lived arguments, about a great many things, with no clear solution in sight.

For that matter, the fact that we were once primitive, and that we have continually added to our knowledge, so as to be as technologically advanced as we are today, proves that determinism doesn't work alone, that free will exists, such as it is, somewhat insignificant within it's greater framework, determinism.

The jury is still out on a great many philosophical debates. And I seriously doubt anyone here at the philosophy now forum shall pave the way, in any great stride, any of those long lived debates.

[Eodnhoj7]

All acts of free will, in the respect that one applies a choice, not only requires a structure from which the choice is both formed and continued (for example I like donuts because they taste good therefore I buy a donut. The structure of the donut having a specific sensation is the means from which the choice manifests, while me eating it repeats this sensation as a structure) but is a structure itself.

1) Free will cannot exist without structure as all acts of free will require the ability to make a choice with this choice being one of structure that is both composed of further structure and composes further structure, hence free will acts as an ever present cause.

2) Free will fundamentally lies in observation as a form of measurement where an act is fundamentally premised in an observation. I see, feel, hear, etc. (observe) a reality and in turn act on that observation to form a new observation. This observation in turn reflects on not just the other observations but provides the premise of choice relative to further actions. I may observe x and y and act through either x or y to form a new action. For example I may observe that I like donuts, but that donuts are bad for my health, hence I may either not eat the donut and care about my health, ignore my health and eat the donut, or just eat part of the donut. Whatever action I take in turn forms a new observation from which further action exists.

3) Free will observes a connection, hence acts as a point in itself from which further measurements exist. I may choose one thing, consciously through thought or intuitively through habit, which in turn leads to another choice which repeats itself so on and so forth as ever present. In these respects free will is less of an observation of extremes but rather an act of mediation through from which structure extends through and is maintained.

It's not enough to keep bringing up structure as some sort of prime mover. Instead one much ask oneself what built the structure, the physics of the universe or the mind. It's the "chain" of causals that come into question, not simply "causals." And to believe in the ever connected chain of causals, as is determinism, falls flat on it's face when confronted with the latest theory of the prime mover as being a singularity, one can't simply stop the chain based upon "I don't know, I guess something came from nothing!" The chain can't have an end or a beginning. This is yet another case of mans current ignorance not allowing any definitive solution with any amount of certainty. And if you are one that says he buys into the uncertainty principle, how can you be certain of your solution on the question of free will?

Instead of choosing a doughnut, which for at least some, can be addictive, try using the choice of a particular path at a fork in the road.

You chose to believe in determinism, or indeterminacies, probably so as to shirk responsibility for your actions. You probably believe that you can do anything, if you can pass responsibility off on the universe; a common immature solution.

I understand that the chain of determinism becomes fuzzy after the appearance of the animal brain. That the limited amount of free will we have starts there. That the universe can cause a brain to exist and be capable of thinking, with some chance thrown in of course, but it can't necessarily cause any particular thought. And this is why throughout philosophy there are long lived arguments, about a great many things, with no clear solution in sight.

For that matter, the fact that we were once primitive, and that we have continually added to our knowledge, so as to be as technologically advanced as we are today, proves that determinism doesn't work alone, that free will exists, such as it is, somewhat insignificant within it's greater framework, determinism.

The jury is still out on a great many philosophical debates. And I seriously doubt anyone here at the philosophy now forum shall pave the way, in any great stride, any of those long lived debates.

Actually structure is the prime mover in the respect the observation of all cause is an observation of structure itself connected to further structure.

All existence, whether physical or abstract, stems from a limit. This limit is the foundation of all structure and the repitition of limit effectively observes the limit as a cause itself where one limit is connected to another, forming another structure, which is connected to another...etc. all of this connection, through limit as limit, observing cause.

[Necromancer]

For FIVE (now six) ARGUMENTS FOR FREE WILL (see blog post)

If now God is the First Mover and souls are of God - God's Temple - why shouldn't (the common) souls be "first" movers too?

Thus, speaking for the "anomalous" free will outside "bumping atoms" determinism...

Link, Blogspot, METAPHYSICS, FIVE ARGUMENTS FOR FREE WILL:
https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... 70411#FAFW

[Dalek Prime]

I did it freely

-Imp

Hardly, my little puppet lol.

[SpheresOfBalance]

For FIVE (now six) ARGUMENTS FOR FREE WILL (see blog post)

If now God is the First Mover and souls are of God - God's Temple - why shouldn't (the common) souls be "first" movers too?
If not god! Prove god, souls, spirit, (the ghosts in the machine), using the scientific method; valid propositions that can only lend to certainly valid conclusions; that is without seemingly being a fool. The fact is you can't! All you can do is quote the writings of archaic times by at least one probable epileptic, and quite possible several schizophrenics. That had no clue that either type minds could exist. It would surely seem that many of, all us people that fear death, which in fact is all of us, are willing to become like early historic people instead of the technologically enlightened people of the day, to sooth that fear.

Personally I'd rather evolve intellectually, rather than believe in voodoo, because of innate fears dating back to, quite possible, the beginning of life on planet earth. But of course you are free to stunt your growth/de-evolve if you wish.

Thus, speaking for the "anomalous" free will outside "bumping atoms" determinism...

Link, Blogspot, METAPHYSICS, FIVE ARGUMENTS FOR FREE WILL:
https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... 70411#FAFW

[Eodnhoj7]

All acts of free will, in the respect that one applies a choice, not only requires a structure from which the choice is both formed and continued (for example I like donuts because they taste good therefore I buy a donut. The structure of the donut having a specific sensation is the means from which the choice manifests, while me eating it repeats this sensation as a structure) but is a structure itself.

1) Free will cannot exist without structure as all acts of free will require the ability to make a choice with this choice being one of structure that is both composed of further structure and composes further structure, hence free will acts as an ever present cause.

2) Free will fundamentally lies in observation as a form of measurement where an act is fundamentally premised in an observation. I see, feel, hear, etc. (observe) a reality and in turn act on that observation to form a new observation. This observation in turn reflects on not just the other observations but provides the premise of choice relative to further actions. I may observe x and y and act through either x or y to form a new action. For example I may observe that I like donuts, but that donuts are bad for my health, hence I may either not eat the donut and care about my health, ignore my health and eat the donut, or just eat part of the donut. Whatever action I take in turn forms a new observation from which further action exists.

3) Free will observes a connection, hence acts as a point in itself from which further measurements exist. I may choose one thing, consciously through thought or intuitively through habit, which in turn leads to another choice which repeats itself so on and so forth as ever present. In these respects free will is less of an observation of extremes but rather an act of mediation through from which structure extends through and is maintained.

It's not enough to keep bringing up structure as some sort of prime mover. Instead one much ask oneself what built the structure, the physics of the universe or the mind.

That is the problem, the dualism between abstract and empirical phenomena. The problem occurs, that in respect to these dualisms the both are united under the same limits of line, point and circle and to argue "its physical, no it's mental!" is to effectively point to a limit (such as a line) which is both.

It ends up with space as the unifying common median.





It's the "chain" of causals that come into question, not simply "causals."

The chain of causals is composed of further chains, much line a line is composed of infinite lines through infinite points (considering the point necessitates the line at minimum).

One can argue chain of causals while effectively observing the chain as a cause is to observe the chain as composed of chains and we are left with replication of symmetry as the prime foundation of cause.



And to believe in the ever connected chain of causals, as is determinism, falls flat on it's face when confronted with the latest theory of the prime mover as being a singularity, one can't simply stop the chain based upon "I don't know, I guess something came from nothing!" The chain can't have an end or a beginning. This is yet another case of mans current ignorance not allowing any definitive solution with any amount of certainty. And if you are one that says he buys into the uncertainty principle, how can you be certain of your solution on the question of free will?

The prime mover as a singularity effectively observes all structure as self-reflective and maintained through a looping process where this circularity provides the infinite movement necessary for structure to exist in the face of nothingness.

This prime movement where everything exists as one moment as all through all, effectively observes "will" as inherent within the nature of structure itself as all abstract concepts are inseperable from physicality considering this all exists as a both limit and no-limit itself.

In these respects the All would be a theoretical 1 dimensional point that is self-reflective and pure being.



Instead of choosing a doughnut, which for at least some, can be addictive, try using the choice of a particular path at a fork in the road.

A choice between eating or not eating the donut is a fork in the road.



You chose to believe in determinism, or indeterminacies, probably so as to shirk responsibility for your actions. You probably believe that you can do anything, if you can pass responsibility off on the universe; a common immature solution.

How can one shirk free will and personal responsibility by saying the act of free will gives precendence to further actions which corresponds to determinism? Free will as determinism observes free will as having consquences.



I understand that the chain of determinism becomes fuzzy after the appearance of the animal brain. That the limited amount of free will we have starts there. That the universe can cause a brain to exist and be capable of thinking, with some chance thrown in of course, but it can't necessarily cause any particular thought. And this is why throughout philosophy there are long lived arguments, about a great many things, with no clear solution in sight.

There actually is a clear solution when going back to the presocratics and observing limit and no limit as the foundation of both the material and abstract phenomena we observe.



For that matter, the fact that we were once primitive, and that we have continually added to our knowledge, so as to be as technologically advanced as we are today, proves that determinism doesn't work alone, that free will exists, such as it is, somewhat insignificant within it's greater framework, determinism.

The increase in technology is effecitively observing a replication of technology, through evolution, which in itself is deterministic.

The jury is still out on a great many philosophical debates. And I seriously doubt anyone here at the philosophy now forum shall pave the way, in any great stride, any of those long lived debates.

Obviously you won't.

[SpheresOfBalance]

All acts of free will, in the respect that one applies a choice, not only requires a structure from which the choice is both formed and continued (for example I like donuts because they taste good therefore I buy a donut. The structure of the donut having a specific sensation is the means from which the choice manifests, while me eating it repeats this sensation as a structure) but is a structure itself.

1) Free will cannot exist without structure as all acts of free will require the ability to make a choice with this choice being one of structure that is both composed of further structure and composes further structure, hence free will acts as an ever present cause.

2) Free will fundamentally lies in observation as a form of measurement where an act is fundamentally premised in an observation. I see, feel, hear, etc. (observe) a reality and in turn act on that observation to form a new observation. This observation in turn reflects on not just the other observations but provides the premise of choice relative to further actions. I may observe x and y and act through either x or y to form a new action. For example I may observe that I like donuts, but that donuts are bad for my health, hence I may either not eat the donut and care about my health, ignore my health and eat the donut, or just eat part of the donut. Whatever action I take in turn forms a new observation from which further action exists.

3) Free will observes a connection, hence acts as a point in itself from which further measurements exist. I may choose one thing, consciously through thought or intuitively through habit, which in turn leads to another choice which repeats itself so on and so forth as ever present. In these respects free will is less of an observation of extremes but rather an act of mediation through from which structure extends through and is maintained.

It's not enough to keep bringing up structure as some sort of prime mover. Instead one much ask oneself what built the structure, the physics of the universe or the mind.

That is the problem, the dualism between abstract and empirical phenomena. The problem occurs, that in respect to these dualisms the both are united under the same limits of line, point and circle and to argue "its physical, no it's mental!" is to effectively point to a limit (such as a line) which is both.

It ends up with space as the unifying common median.





It's the "chain" of causals that come into question, not simply "causals."

The chain of causals is composed of further chains, much line a line is composed of infinite lines through infinite points (considering the point necessitates the line at minimum).

One can argue chain of causals while effectively observing the chain as a cause is to observe the chain as composed of chains and we are left with replication of symmetry as the prime foundation of cause.



And to believe in the ever connected chain of causals, as is determinism, falls flat on it's face when confronted with the latest theory of the prime mover as being a singularity, one can't simply stop the chain based upon "I don't know, I guess something came from nothing!" The chain can't have an end or a beginning. This is yet another case of mans current ignorance not allowing any definitive solution with any amount of certainty. And if you are one that says he buys into the uncertainty principle, how can you be certain of your solution on the question of free will?

The prime mover as a singularity effectively observes all structure as self-reflective and maintained through a looping process where this circularity provides the infinite movement necessary for structure to exist in the face of nothingness.

This prime movement where everything exists as one moment as all through all, effectively observes "will" as inherent within the nature of structure itself as all abstract concepts are inseperable from physicality considering this all exists as a both limit and no-limit itself.

In these respects the All would be a theoretical 1 dimensional point that is self-reflective and pure being.



Instead of choosing a doughnut, which for at least some, can be addictive, try using the choice of a particular path at a fork in the road.

A choice between eating or not eating the donut is a fork in the road.



You chose to believe in determinism, or indeterminacies, probably so as to shirk responsibility for your actions. You probably believe that you can do anything, if you can pass responsibility off on the universe; a common immature solution.

How can one shirk free will and personal responsibility by saying the act of free will gives precendence to further actions which corresponds to determinism? Free will as determinism observes free will as having consquences.



I understand that the chain of determinism becomes fuzzy after the appearance of the animal brain. That the limited amount of free will we have starts there. That the universe can cause a brain to exist and be capable of thinking, with some chance thrown in of course, but it can't necessarily cause any particular thought. And this is why throughout philosophy there are long lived arguments, about a great many things, with no clear solution in sight.

There actually is a clear solution when going back to the presocratics and observing limit and no limit as the foundation of both the material and abstract phenomena we observe.



For that matter, the fact that we were once primitive, and that we have continually added to our knowledge, so as to be as technologically advanced as we are today, proves that determinism doesn't work alone, that free will exists, such as it is, somewhat insignificant within it's greater framework, determinism.

The increase in technology is effecitively observing a replication of technology, through evolution, which in itself is deterministic.

The jury is still out on a great many philosophical debates. And I seriously doubt anyone here at the philosophy now forum shall pave the way, in any great stride, any of those long lived debates.

Obviously you won't.

The old: 'If you say you can or you say you can't, you're right'? Or your comment on my capabilities?

If the latter, many have sold me short and lived to regret it. If the former, point well taken!

[Eodnhoj7]

It's not enough to keep bringing up structure as some sort of prime mover. Instead one much ask oneself what built the structure, the physics of the universe or the mind.

That is the problem, the dualism between abstract and empirical phenomena. The problem occurs, that in respect to these dualisms the both are united under the same limits of line, point and circle and to argue "its physical, no it's mental!" is to effectively point to a limit (such as a line) which is both.

It ends up with space as the unifying common median.





It's the "chain" of causals that come into question, not simply "causals."

The chain of causals is composed of further chains, much line a line is composed of infinite lines through infinite points (considering the point necessitates the line at minimum).

One can argue chain of causals while effectively observing the chain as a cause is to observe the chain as composed of chains and we are left with replication of symmetry as the prime foundation of cause.



And to believe in the ever connected chain of causals, as is determinism, falls flat on it's face when confronted with the latest theory of the prime mover as being a singularity, one can't simply stop the chain based upon "I don't know, I guess something came from nothing!" The chain can't have an end or a beginning. This is yet another case of mans current ignorance not allowing any definitive solution with any amount of certainty. And if you are one that says he buys into the uncertainty principle, how can you be certain of your solution on the question of free will?

The prime mover as a singularity effectively observes all structure as self-reflective and maintained through a looping process where this circularity provides the infinite movement necessary for structure to exist in the face of nothingness.

This prime movement where everything exists as one moment as all through all, effectively observes "will" as inherent within the nature of structure itself as all abstract concepts are inseperable from physicality considering this all exists as a both limit and no-limit itself.

In these respects the All would be a theoretical 1 dimensional point that is self-reflective and pure being.



Instead of choosing a doughnut, which for at least some, can be addictive, try using the choice of a particular path at a fork in the road.

A choice between eating or not eating the donut is a fork in the road.



You chose to believe in determinism, or indeterminacies, probably so as to shirk responsibility for your actions. You probably believe that you can do anything, if you can pass responsibility off on the universe; a common immature solution.

How can one shirk free will and personal responsibility by saying the act of free will gives precendence to further actions which corresponds to determinism? Free will as determinism observes free will as having consquences.



I understand that the chain of determinism becomes fuzzy after the appearance of the animal brain. That the limited amount of free will we have starts there. That the universe can cause a brain to exist and be capable of thinking, with some chance thrown in of course, but it can't necessarily cause any particular thought. And this is why throughout philosophy there are long lived arguments, about a great many things, with no clear solution in sight.

There actually is a clear solution when going back to the presocratics and observing limit and no limit as the foundation of both the material and abstract phenomena we observe.



For that matter, the fact that we were once primitive, and that we have continually added to our knowledge, so as to be as technologically advanced as we are today, proves that determinism doesn't work alone, that free will exists, such as it is, somewhat insignificant within it's greater framework, determinism.

The increase in technology is effecitively observing a replication of technology, through evolution, which in itself is deterministic.

The jury is still out on a great many philosophical debates. And I seriously doubt anyone here at the philosophy now forum shall pave the way, in any great stride, any of those long lived debates.

Obviously you won't.

The old: 'If you say you can or you say you can't, you're right'? Or your comment on my capabilities?

If the latter, many have sold me short and lived to regret it. If the former, point well taken!

I am selling you short...give me regret.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The old: 'If you say you can or you say you can't, you're right'? Or your comment on my capabilities?

If the latter, many have sold me short and lived to regret it. If the former, point well taken!

I am selling you short...give me regret.

You're not very bright are you?

[Eodnhoj7]

The old: 'If you say you can or you say you can't, you're right'? Or your comment on my capabilities?

If the latter, many have sold me short and lived to regret it. If the former, point well taken!

I am selling you short...give me regret.

You're not very bright are you?

Are you bright?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I am selling you short...give me regret.

You're not very bright are you?

Are you bright?

Well I can reason pretty damned well, my logic is impeccable. And I never take anyones word on anything unless I fully understand it's truth factor.
So you'll never see me parrot anything.

As far as exceptionally bright, no, just a B average, so not especially. My IQ was closer to genius than average, actually between the two, I was marginally closer to the three quarters point than the halfway point. I'll take a B, that's good enough for me! Then one has to consider that I was tested back in the mid 90's. Who knows how it's gone since then. Though I know for a fact that I understand some things better than you do, and the same thing can be said of you. Everyone has their forte'. If only our minds could contain everything, that would be nice! Yeah?

Tell me the truth, you're starting to regret it already, right?