Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother

[Terrapin Station]

Yet determinism is necessary for free will to exist given one cannot make a choice without effects resulting from it.

It's as if you didn't read my earlier posts.

And what was so valuable about your earlier posts?

I explained to you that "determinism" refers to the view that ALL phenomena are deterministic.

[Immanuel Can]

Athletes already push through the pain by forming images, ie meditation, through it.

Yes, well...nail your hand to the floor, then pretend you haven't and just walk away, and see how it works for you. Then you'll understand the difference between reality and imagination, I guarantee you.

Look at the mentally ill person tormented by thoughts and say the thoughts don't exist because they do.

You skipped the experiment. So you don't know. Go try it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, well...nail your hand to the floor, then pretend you haven't and just walk away, and see how it works for you. Then you'll understand the difference between reality and imagination, I guarantee you.

Look at the mentally ill person tormented by thoughts and say the thoughts don't exist because they do.

You skipped the experiment. So you don't know. Go try it.

You are failing to read into the distinguishment I already made. The action is real as an action. The thought is real as a thought.

Thoughts form reality the same way a set of schematics form a building. The schematics are real. The building is real.

[Eodnhoj7]

It's as if you didn't read my earlier posts.

And what was so valuable about your earlier posts?

I explained to you that "determinism" refers to the view that ALL phenomena are deterministic.

And if only part of reality is deterministic then that part is still deterministic within the totality of that context. Determinism is an extreme viewpoint just like pure free will is an extreme.

The only way pure determinism and pure free will coexist is if all being, as cause and effect, exists freely within a void. The pure expression of being relative to Nothingness necessitates being as not only free but deterministic as one expression of being replicates into another.

[Terrapin Station]

And if only part of reality is deterministic then

Then we're not talking about determinism.

Determinism is the view that ALL phenomena are deterministic.

If that's not the view, we're not talking about determinism.

[Eodnhoj7]

And if only part of reality is deterministic then

Then we're not talking about determinism.

Determinism is the view that ALL phenomena are deterministic.

If that's not the view, we're not talking about determinism.

Yet the cause and effect chain which results from a choice is deterministic....A leads to B which leads to C.

[Immanuel Can]

You are failing to read into the distinguishment I already made.

There's no such thing as a "distinguishment."' And "each other" is two words, not one.

So we can fix two things you don't understand right there.

The action is real as an action. The thought is real as a thought.

I understand what you think you're trying to say. But it's not correct, and shows a failure of logic called "equivocation."

To be "real as only a thought" is not to be actually real.

Thoughts form reality the same way a set of schematics form a building. The schematics are real. The building is real.

Schematics are representations of things, not the thing-itself. That's how a schematic relates to a building.

So now you've got three categories of "existing": 1. Things only present iin imagination, 2. Things only representing other things, and 3. Things that actually exist as themselves. None of the three "exists" in the same way.

But I think you can't understand that, and I just can't make the essential point any simpler than Terrapin Station already has, so you're on your own now.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are failing to read into the distinguishment I already made.

There's no such thing as a "distinguishment."' And "each other" is two words, not one.

So we can fix two things you don't understand right there.

The action is real as an action. The thought is real as a thought.

I understand what you think you're trying to say. But it's not correct, and shows a failure of logic called "equivocation."

To be "real as only a thought" is not to be actually real.

Thoughts form reality the same way a set of schematics form a building. The schematics are real. The building is real.

Schematics are representations of things, not the thing-itself. That's how a schematic relates to a building.

So now you've got three categories of "existing": 1. Things only present iin imagination, 2. Things only representing other things, and 3. Things that actually exist as themselves. None of the three "exists" in the same way.

But I think you can't understand that, and I just can't make the essential point any simpler than Terrapin Station already has, so you're on your own now.

Personally I don't think you understand your own position and are threatened that someone doubts it.

1. Distinguishment is a word:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... nguishment
https://www.yourdictionary.com/distinguishment


2. You are failing to define what is real and using it as a term which is subject to your own meaning. The actuality of thought necessitates the thought as real. If it is observed it is real. Dually are those categories of reality real? Because if they are then concepts are real given these categories are concepts.


3. Representations are real as phenomena. They are the mirroring of a phenomena under a new form. This mirroring is a replication and as a replication exist as a variation.


4. Imagination is the image of of thing and as an image is a representation. This representation is a thing in itself and as a copy is its own phenomenon.

[Immanuel Can]

Personally I don't think you understand your own position and are threatened that someone doubts it.

You're wrong, actually. I completely understand what you don't understand. But I can't make you understand it. Why that is, you can decide: is it because you're refusing to think, or incapable of thinking?

I'm in no position to say. So you choose. But again, I have no interest in drilling holes in water.

[Eodnhoj7]

Personally I don't think you understand your own position and are threatened that someone doubts it.

You're wrong, actually. I completely understand what you don't understand. But I can't make you understand it. Why that is, you can decide: is it because you're refusing to think, or incapable of thinking?

I'm in no position to say. So you choose. But again, I have no interest in drilling holes in water.

You ignoring the posts above only to focus on that single quote shows your inability to respond, your lack of a response further shows an inability to understand the above.

Freewill and Determinism coexist at minimum to what is stated in the above arguments.

[Immanuel Can]

Personally I don't think you understand your own position and are threatened that someone doubts it.

You're wrong, actually. I completely understand what you don't understand. But I can't make you understand it. Why that is, you can decide: is it because you're refusing to think, or incapable of thinking?

I'm in no position to say. So you choose. But again, I have no interest in drilling holes in water.

Not bothering anymore.

[Age]

WHY are you 'out' when "others" can not or will not answer your questions, which you pose to "them"?

Because it's impossible to make anything of somebody who doesn't even know (or is not willing to recognize) the difference between real and imaginary.

Just like it is impossible to make anything of somebody who or who does not even know what they are talking about or claiming and so they can not or will not answer clarifying questions posed to them, correct?

Rather like it's impossible to make headway with a person who only responds with questions, and never allows for intelligent progress.

If one can not or will not answer clarifying questions, then obviously intelligent progress can NOT proceed either.

Same deal.

Unless you like the experience of trying to drill a hole in water, you're better to be "out."

So, when you can not or will not answer clarifying questions, then you just suggest the other be out, correct?

[Age]

"Determinism" is the view that all phenomena are determined.

"Freedom" (and "free will" as a subset of it) is the view that there are at least some phenomena that are not determined.

Those two positions are mutually exclusive. If you think that all phenomena are determined, then it can't be the case that some phenomena are free.

If you think that at least some phenomena are free, then you can't think that all phenomena are determined.

This is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of where you BELIEVE that you KNOW what the One and ONLY definition is for words, and if anyone thinks or views things differently, then they are just WRONG.

[Age]

And if only part of reality is deterministic then

Then we're not talking about determinism.

Determinism is the view that ALL phenomena are deterministic.

If that's not the view, we're not talking about determinism.

LOL If that is the view 'you', human beings, have for the word 'determinism', then no wonder 'you' have made NO progress at all in the last few thousand years, in this discussion.

[Age]

1. An act of free will requires further actions to occur from that choice thus necessitating determinism coming from free will.

EVERY 'action' required a previous action.

To me, however, an act of 'free will' does NOT "require" ANY thing. However, from EVERY act of 'free will' a further action, naturally, occurs, anyway.

2. "It" references the totality of being as the conversation and concept of free will emerges within the fabric of being.

Your words here, AGAIN, are NOT helping 'me', at all, understand 'you' better. For example, from the very first word of your sentence I have ABSOLUTELY NO idea NOR clue as to what you are referring to NOT meaning.

Was just using thee ACTUAL word that the word "it" here was referring instead of using the 'it' word REALLY to hard to do?

Or, did you NOT use 'that word' for some other reason?

If yes, then what was that reason, EXACTLY?

3. If free will came through evolution a contradiction entails given both free will and evolution are agents of change thus necessitating "change" as a phenomenon being divided. In the act of free will a change occurs in a form with this new form being a variation of the prior form. This variation is an evolution of forms. Evolution of being, where being exists in contrast to nothing, is pure being freely coming from nothing. This freedom of being from nothing is the will of being thus necessitating being occuring through free will.

IF 'you' EVER get around to EXPLAINING what 'free will' is, to 'you', then 'we' can START LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING 'this'.

Until then what 'you' are talking about and/or referring to here, ONLY 'you' KNOW.

4. If free will requires determinism and determinism requires free will then both free will and determinism coexist.

LOL There is NO dispute that 'free will' and 'determinism' coexist. So, 'you' do NOT need to keep 'trying to' argue for this conclusion.

What 'you' NEED to do, from my perspective, is just SHOW and PROVE how 'you' arrived at that conclusion, in a logically reasoned way. So far, 'you' have NOT YET.

Also, what I was putting forward, through a clarifying question, was; HAS 'free will' ALWAYS coexisted with 'determinism', or, did 'free' will' come to exist, somewhere along the evolutionary line of 'things'?

I suggest STOP 'trying to' argue that 'free will' and 'determinism' coexist. To me, I think this is irrefutable anyway. Instead I suggest you START LOOKING AT the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I am putting forward, to you, and then just Honestly responding to them, ONLY. That way 'you' will then ACTUALLY find, and thus obtain, thee ACTUAL PROOF, which you are 'trying to' SHOW here.

You want proof but you do not define proof thus leading your version of proof to be open ended subjective interpretation.

Has ANY one here asked me to define 'proof'?

If yes, then who and when?

You want interpretations that fit your already held assumptions and beliefs.

LOL This statement is a COMPLETE DISTORTION as well as being OBVIOUSLY False, and so is just BEYOND A JOKE, especially considering what I have ACTUALLY been saying and CLEARLY POINTING OUT.

1. Free will is an action. Action builds upon action thus necessitating free will as part of a cause and effect chain.

2. "It" references all of being. Free will emerges as part of the totality of being as in looking at the totality of being free will is part of it strictly because we are discussing it. This discussion is part of the totality of being thus necessitating we are observing free will as a phenomenon.

3. Free will is change initiated through the "I".

4. The proof of free will existing is the fact we are observing it through a conversation. It cannot be an illusion as an illusion implies deception and deception requires a choice between truth and falsity.

The proof if determinism is the fact that one action precedes another, one action builds upon another.

The proof that they coexist is that if everything is determined then this conversation of free will, hence of the observation of free will, determines free will existing as a phenomenon. If free will exists a series of actions build upon the prior actions chosen, much in the same manner we chose to discuss free will and a series of thoughts (ie actions) build upon prior thoughts (actions).

5. Free will has always existed along determinism given the evolution of patterns necessitated an intelligence behind them given intelligence is pattern manipulation. Evolution is pattern variation thus is synonymous to determinism. This pattern variation necessitates a universal intelligence.

You have concluded some things, which may be ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct. However, you are NOT YET able to explain how 'you' arrived at such a conclusion.

For example what evidence or proof do you have for your claim that; "the evolution of patterns necessitated an intelligence behind them", or for your other claim that; "given intelligence is pattern manipulation"?

Besides the fact that that this is just circular, like saying; "the tree is green", "given trees are green", you have NOT shown ANY proof for your claim that 'intelligence' is pattern manipulation to begin with. For all we know 'pattern manipulation' could just be particle interaction, which may have absolutely nothing at all to do with intelligence.