to grok free Will

[Flannel Jesus]

Iambiguous made an alt account!

There is no justification for this kind of nastiness, Curly!

Sorry moe (are you more?). It won't happen again, I swears.

[Wizard22]

I've never encountered a person who is more controlled by the media than you. You are determined by the swamp of the social media you see.
You are willingly enslaved by yourself.

You're projecting, as per usual.

[Flannel Jesus]

I've never encountered a person who is more controlled by the media than you. You are determined by the swamp of the social media you see.
You are willingly enslaved by yourself.

You're projecting, as per usual.

Nah we've all noticed the irony.

[Iwannaplato]

Iambiguous made an alt account!

There is no justification for this kind of nastiness, Curly!

Sorry moe (are you more?). It won't happen again, I swears.

I'm very upset.....

[Age]

BUT, "advocate" IS MAKING 'sense', AND, IS NOT MAKING 'sense', here.

Where is he making sense and where is he not making sense?

WHERE I SAID, and WROTE, in the immediate following sentence, after the one you quoted me here with. That is; the one which you did NOT quote here.

But the 'I just made sense' quale had to be felt by you at that moment you wrote the above. Was it caused by the strength of your reasoning? or by your need? or by some clump of neurons misfiring? You can't know.

WHY can "advocate", supposedly, NOT KNOW?

I argued why above, in the part you quoted.

But you did NOT soundly AND validly argue. you just made a CLAIM, with NO actual PROOF for, ASKED three QUESTIONS, and then CONCLUDED WITH, 'you can NOT know'.

I CAN KNOW, (and DO KNOW, by the way). And, if I CAN KNOW SOME 'thing' here, then so CAN ALL OF 'you', AS WELL.

Can 'you', "iwannaplato", ALSO NOT KNOW?

As far as I can tell I am certainly capable of not knowing.

OF COURSE 'you' are CAPABLE of NOT knowing', but 'this' is just MISSING the POINT.

The POINT being that what 'you' CLAIMED here "advocate" could NOT know, to me CAN BE KNOWN, and IS ALREADY KNOWN. Which means "advocate" and 'you', "iwannaplato" CAN ALSO KNOW, TOO.

By the way, 'you' are CERTAINLY CAPABLE of NOT knowing some 'thing', by just REFUSING TO LEARN and KNOW that 'thing'. But 'this' is ANOTHER matter here.

I remember many instances when this was the case, as far as I can tell. Of course, I'm not a believer in determinism, so what I am saying is entailed by that belief is not necessarily entailed for me. And I am also not a believer in free will. I think certain things are entailed by a belief in determinism. I put forward one of those.

Okay.

Can 'you', human beings, EVER KNOW?

What do you think, Age?

IF no, then, supposedly, WHY NOT?

It was always going to seem to you (that 'that makes sense' quale) as if you were making sense, at least to you it was always going to seem that way. But for all you know, it might have been near gibberish.

BUT 'it' WAS, and IS, so-called 'gibberish', WHEN IN relation to what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY?

This looks like a question, since it has a question mark, but it seems like a statement. In any case, I am not sure what the question is, if it is one.

It was NOT MEANT to be A QUESTION. So, I must of ADDED the question mark, Wrongly.

Sorry for ANY and ALL CONFUSION.

What is the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE truth, Age?

In relation to 'what', EXACTLY, "iwannaplato"?

[Iwannaplato]

Where is he making sense and where is he not making sense?

WHERE I SAID, and WROTE, in the immediate following sentence, after the one you quoted me here with. That is; the one which you did NOT quote here.

OK, that sentence was the following.....

What "advocate" SAYS and WRITES here, MAKES 'sense', TO "advocate". BUT, NOT TO SOME "others".

Can you explain how this answers my question which I also quoted above and what that answer is?

But the 'I just made sense' quale had to be felt by you at that moment you wrote the above. Was it caused by the strength of your reasoning? or by your need? or by some clump of neurons misfiring? You can't know.

WHY can "advocate", supposedly, NOT KNOW?

I argued why above, in the part you quoted.

But you did NOT soundly AND validly argue. you just made a CLAIM, with NO actual PROOF for, ASKED three QUESTIONS, and then CONCLUDED WITH, 'you can NOT know'.

And by that I meant that he can't know which of those things is happening. I'm sure you're right that my argument could have been better. Do you disagree? Do you think that one can be sure that when one feels the 'I just reasoned correctly' quale that this quale is elicited, necessarily by correct reasoning? (if one believes in determinism that is)

I CAN KNOW, (and DO KNOW, by the way). And, if I CAN KNOW SOME 'thing' here, then so CAN ALL OF 'you', AS WELL.

Do you believe determinism, the way Advocate expressed it in his OP. I didn't say Age can't know. I didn't say one can't know. I was making a point related to his confidence in his conclusions given his set of beliefs.

Can 'you', "iwannaplato", ALSO NOT KNOW?

As far as I can tell I am certainly capable of not knowing.

OF COURSE 'you' are CAPABLE of NOT knowing', but 'this' is just MISSING the POINT.

You asked me

Can 'you', "iwannaplato", ALSO NOT KNOW?

So, I answered that question to the best of my ability, while keeping my answer short.

The POINT being that what 'you' CLAIMED here "advocate" could NOT know, to me CAN BE KNOWN, and IS ALREADY KNOWN. Which means "advocate" and 'you', "iwannaplato" CAN ALSO KNOW, TOO.

That is quite possible, but then this might well be in the context of your beliefs, not his. That would be something we would need to find out, I think. If someone says something and it seems to entail X. I may point this out to the person. That their belief does or seems to entail X. And so we work from there. I don't know if you have the same way of looking at things as he does, so I have no idea if how you think entails X. I was communicating with him and in the context of what I think his belief and way of thinking is.

It was always going to seem to you (that 'that makes sense' quale) as if you were making sense, at least to you it was always going to seem that way. But for all you know, it might have been near gibberish.

BUT 'it' WAS, and IS, so-called 'gibberish', WHEN IN relation to what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY?

This looks like a question, since it has a question mark, but it seems like a statement. In any case, I am not sure what the question is, if it is one. [/quote]

It was NOT MEANT to be A QUESTION. So, I must of ADDED the question mark, Wrongly.

Sorry for ANY and ALL CONFUSION.

No worries.

What is the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE truth, Age?

In relation to 'what', EXACTLY, "iwannaplato"?

Whatever you were referring to here....

BUT 'it' WAS, and IS, so-called 'gibberish', WHEN IN relation to what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY

[Walker]

I'm very upset.....

The antidote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G8pqRM6Ew8

[Alexiev]

There is no sense in which our will is free. Causality is infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.

We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. To the extent we do not understand causality, we may feel free.

The word "Will" alone is sufficient to discuss the experience of freedom.

THe only way the phrase "free will" can be used is in situations where no one is compelling you to act against your personal inclination.
For all other acts we act in a way determined by who and what we are at that moment.

Many how argue for free will complain that arguing for a deterministic reality absolves us of responsibility.

This is bogus - only when we are forced to act against our determination can we be free of responsibility of our actions. When we are literally determined to act in the knowlege that we might be doing wrong, that is a reflection on our personality. Sanctions can be brought to bear against that person. Such sanctions my cause a change of mind. I argue that the penal system needs to be geared to effect such changes to avoid residivism.

It turns out that such penal systems that recognise mitigation of circumstance are better equipped to do their job than those beleive in the myth of radical free will.

For those that peddle the myth of radical free will prisoners are willful and irredeemable. Lock em up and throw awy the key. So much for overcrowded American prisons, where free will rules!

I prefer the Scandinavian system which works to reform prisoners, and the rates of residivism are the lowest in the world.

As I said earlier, "free" and "will" as the words are normally used do not deny causes. Instead, they suggest "uncoerced by others".

In addition, your love of Scandanavia appears unwarranted, at least according to this website, which shows high rates of recidivism.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Why would free will make criminals unredeemable? Are you suggesting we go full Clockwork Orange? People can "freely" decide to commit crimes, or they can freely decide not to. The same person could change his ways and change his mind without being brainwashed into it.

[Sculptor]

I've never encountered a person who is more controlled by the media than you. You are determined by the swamp of the social media you see.
You are willingly enslaved by yourself.

You're projecting, as per usual.

Stop rattleing your chains

[Sculptor]

There is no sense in which our will is free. Causality is infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.

We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. To the extent we do not understand causality, we may feel free.

The word "Will" alone is sufficient to discuss the experience of freedom.

THe only way the phrase "free will" can be used is in situations where no one is compelling you to act against your personal inclination.
For all other acts we act in a way determined by who and what we are at that moment.

Many how argue for free will complain that arguing for a deterministic reality absolves us of responsibility.

This is bogus - only when we are forced to act against our determination can we be free of responsibility of our actions. When we are literally determined to act in the knowlege that we might be doing wrong, that is a reflection on our personality. Sanctions can be brought to bear against that person. Such sanctions my cause a change of mind. I argue that the penal system needs to be geared to effect such changes to avoid residivism.

It turns out that such penal systems that recognise mitigation of circumstance are better equipped to do their job than those beleive in the myth of radical free will.

For those that peddle the myth of radical free will prisoners are willful and irredeemable. Lock em up and throw awy the key. So much for overcrowded American prisons, where free will rules!

I prefer the Scandinavian system which works to reform prisoners, and the rates of residivism are the lowest in the world.

As I said earlier, "free" and "will" as the words are normally used do not deny causes. Instead, they suggest "uncoerced by others".

In addition, your love of Scandanavia appears unwarranted, at least according to this website, which shows high rates of recidivism.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Why would free will make criminals unredeemable? Are you suggesting we go full Clockwork Orange? People can "freely" decide to commit crimes, or they can freely decide not to. The same person could change his ways and change his mind without being brainwashed into it.

You are missing the point I made

[Advocate]

[quote=Alexiev post_id=677685 time=1699054276 user_id=24471]
[quote=Advocate post_id=586996 time=1659201444 user_id=15238]
There is no sense in which our will is free. Causality is infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.

We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. To the extent we do not understand causality, we may feel free.

The word "Will" alone is sufficient to discuss the experience of freedom.
[/quote]

Of course there are reasons for every decision we make. So what? Why would that invalidate the concept of free will. "Free" means "unconstrained by others". Or it means "able to act as we desire unconstrained by others."

We cannot fly by flapping our arms. But that doesn't mean we lack freedom. Simply because our actions are caused we cannot they are not free. That would be a misuse of the word "free". .
[/quote]

Constraining freedom to a social context doesn't change the calculus.

[Alexiev]

You are missing the point I made

No I'm not. I agree that determinism does not obviate responsibility. However, I think the notion that all of our thoughts and actions are "determined" by (if we take your reductionism to its conclusion) sub-atomic particles swirling in space is utterly irrelevant to our use of the words "free" and "will".

Of course all our thoughts and actions are correlated to synapses firing in our brains. Nobody denies this. But does that affect our use of the words "free" and "will"? It doesn't. Perhaps it will in the future, as our understanding increases. But not now.

A card player says there is a 1/52 chance that he will get the ace of spades with the first card dealt. Of course he is wrong. The order of the cards has been determined by the shuffle. He is either certain to get the ace of spades or certain to get some other card. Still, from his perspective he is correct. Same with free will. Since we don't have certain knowledge about synapses, or other causes, we quite correctly ascribe decisions to "free choice". It's the way we use language, and it's the best we can currently do.

[Age]

Where is he making sense and where is he not making sense?

WHERE I SAID, and WROTE, in the immediate following sentence, after the one you quoted me here with. That is; the one which you did NOT quote here.

OK, that sentence was the following.....

What "advocate" SAYS and WRITES here, MAKES 'sense', TO "advocate". BUT, NOT TO SOME "others".

Can you explain how this answers my question which I also quoted above and what that answer is?

If 'this' does ANSWER your QUESTION, TO 'you', or NOT, ONLY 'you' would KNOW.

What the ANSWER, more specifically, is, is in 'the brain'. So, WHERE "advocate" is making 'sense' here is in 'the brain', in 'that body'. And, WHERE "adovate" is NOT making sense is in 'the brain', in "other human bodies".

But the 'I just made sense' quale had to be felt by you at that moment you wrote the above. Was it caused by the strength of your reasoning? or by your need? or by some clump of neurons misfiring? You can't know.

WHY can "advocate", supposedly, NOT KNOW?

I argued why above, in the part you quoted.

But you did NOT soundly AND validly argue. you just made a CLAIM, with NO actual PROOF for, ASKED three QUESTIONS, and then CONCLUDED WITH, 'you can NOT know'.

And by that I meant that he can't know which of those things is happening. I'm sure you're right that my argument could have been better. Do you disagree?

Do I disagree with 'what' here, EXACTLY?

That "advocate" can NOT know which of those things is happening?

That 'your' argument could have been better? Or,

Some 'thing' else?

Do you think that one can be sure that when one feels the 'I just reasoned correctly' quale that this quale is elicited, necessarily by correct reasoning? (if one believes in determinism that is)

Whether one 'feels' if they had just 'reasoned correctly', which was elicited, necessarily by 'correct reasoning', or not, to 'me' has absolutely NO bearing on whether 'that one' BELIEVES in 'determinism', or not.

To me one CAN BE and IS SURE that 'that one' has 'reasoned' Correctly WHEN 'that one' KNOWS, FOR SURE, that absolutely EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT what has been 'reasoned'.

I CAN KNOW, (and DO KNOW, by the way). And, if I CAN KNOW SOME 'thing' here, then so CAN ALL OF 'you', AS WELL.

Do you believe determinism, the way Advocate expressed it in his OP.

NO. And I will REPEAT, I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE absolutely ANY 'thing'.

I didn't say Age can't know. I didn't say one can't know. I was making a point related to his confidence in his conclusions given his set of beliefs.

Okay, if you say so.

Can 'you', "iwannaplato", ALSO NOT KNOW?

As far as I can tell I am certainly capable of not knowing.

OF COURSE 'you' are CAPABLE of NOT knowing', but 'this' is just MISSING the POINT.

You asked me

Can 'you', "iwannaplato", ALSO NOT KNOW?

So, I answered that question to the best of my ability, while keeping my answer short.

The POINT being that what 'you' CLAIMED here "advocate" could NOT know, to me CAN BE KNOWN, and IS ALREADY KNOWN. Which means "advocate" and 'you', "iwannaplato" CAN ALSO KNOW, TOO.

That is quite possible,

you. I was, after all, just HIGHLIGHTING that 'that' COULD BE KNOWN.

but then this might well be in the context of your beliefs, not his.

What 'beliefs' do 'you' ASSUME, PRESUME, or BELIEVE I have, EXACTLY?

Also, how MANY TIMES does one have to INFORM "others" of the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, BEFORE "those others" ACCEPT what IS being SAID, and CLAIMED?

OBVIOUSLY NOT A one of 'you' could KNOW the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, within 'this head'. So, to PRESUME or, worse still, to BELIEVE that ANY one of 'you' DO is an ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY.

Now, if, within 'this head', there ARE NO BELIEFS, and there ARE ONLY 'thoughts' ABOUT what is/could be true, THEN THERE ARE NO BELIEFS. FULL STOP. Either ACCEPT 'this' AND MOVE ON, OR, BE STUCK BELIEVING that you KNOW otherwise, or better.

That would be something we would need to find out, I think.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here IS that even WHEN 'this one', and even 'these people', back then, would even MENTION, publicly, the fact that, 'That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', 'this one', and/or 'they', would STILL NEVER even CONSIDER to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which would THEN HAVE ALLOWED 'them' TO FIND OUT.

If someone says something and it seems to entail X. I may point this out to the person. That their belief does or seems to entail X. And so we work from there. I don't know if you have the same way of looking at things as he does, so I have no idea if how you think entails X. I was communicating with him and in the context of what I think his belief and way of thinking is.

Okay. BUT, BEFORE I like to 'move on', or 'work from there', I, FIRST, like to DISCOVER and ASCERTAIN IF what one is SAYING and CLAIMING is what 'that one' BELIEVES is true or just THINKS is true, and then I would 'move on' and ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION/S regarding what, EXACTLY, 'their' BELIEF or THOUGHT ACTUALLY 'entails'.

I PREFER 'them' INFORMING 'me', rather than 'me' TELLING 'them', what 'their' OWN 'thoughts', 'presumptions', or 'beliefs' ENTAIL, EXACTLY.

Also, I was JUST POINTING OUT and SHOWING here that what 'you' SAID and CLAIMED could NOT be DONE, COULD ACTUALLY BE DONE. And, NOT MUCH MORE.

It was always going to seem to you (that 'that makes sense' quale) as if you were making sense, at least to you it was always going to seem that way. But for all you know, it might have been near gibberish.

BUT 'it' WAS, and IS, so-called 'gibberish', WHEN IN relation to what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY?

This looks like a question, since it has a question mark, but it seems like a statement. In any case, I am not sure what the question is, if it is one.

It was NOT MEANT to be A QUESTION. So, I must of ADDED the question mark, Wrongly.

Sorry for ANY and ALL CONFUSION.

No worries.

What is the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE truth, Age?

In relation to 'what', EXACTLY, "iwannaplato"?

Whatever you were referring to here....

BUT 'it' WAS, and IS, so-called 'gibberish', WHEN IN relation to what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY

Okay. What I was REFERRING TO was what "advocate" WROTE and SAID, which was;

There is no sense in which our will is free. Causality is infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.

We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. To the extent we do not understand causality, we may feel free.

The word "Will" alone is sufficient to discuss the experience of freedom.

Now, what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here, EXACTLY, is that what the word or phrase 'will' could ACTUALLY MEAN and/or BE REFERRING TO, which could FIT IN, PERFECTLY, WITH the word or phrase 'determinism', and 'its' definition/s, and which could FIT IN WITH EVERY 'thing' ELSE, PERFECTLY, making up the GUTOE VERIFIABLE, then "adovacates" OWN personal definition/s of the 'will' word will 'not work', does NOT 'make sense', and thus IS 'gibberish'.

Does 'this', now, 'make sense', to 'you', "iwannaplato"?

[Iwannaplato]

To me one CAN BE and IS SURE that 'that one' has 'reasoned' Correctly WHEN 'that one' KNOWS, FOR SURE, that absolutely EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT what has been 'reasoned'.

I notice you used the word 'COULD' here. So, it is not that they do agree or have agreed, it is that the potential is there for them to agree. How do you know when you, Age, have reasoned that everyone could agree, despite their not having agreed, yet?

That is if you have every been certain you have reasoned correctly.

NO. And I will REPEAT, I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE absolutely ANY 'thing'.

Fine. That sets you apart from Advocate.

I didn't say Age can't know. I didn't say one can't know. I was making a point related to his confidence in his conclusions given his set of beliefs.

but then this might well be in the context of your beliefs, not his.

What 'beliefs' do 'you' ASSUME, PRESUME, or BELIEVE I have, EXACTLY?

I don't. Hence 'might.'

Also, how MANY TIMES does one have to INFORM "others" of the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, BEFORE "those others" ACCEPT what IS being SAID, and CLAIMED?

OBVIOUSLY NOT A one of 'you' could KNOW the ACTUAL 'thoughts' EXISTING, within 'this head'. So, to PRESUME or, worse still, to BELIEVE that ANY one of 'you' DO is an ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY.

Now, if, within 'this head', there ARE NO BELIEFS, and there ARE ONLY 'thoughts' ABOUT what is/could be true, THEN THERE ARE NO BELIEFS. FULL STOP. Either ACCEPT 'this' AND MOVE ON, OR, BE STUCK BELIEVING that you KNOW otherwise, or better.

I am well aware of your position on yourself regarding beliefs.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here IS that even WHEN 'this one', and even 'these people', back then, would even MENTION, publicly, the fact that, 'That would be something 'we' would NEED to find out', 'this one', and/or 'they', would STILL NEVER even CONSIDER to just ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which would THEN HAVE ALLOWED 'them' TO FIND OUT.

Hm. So, in these last posts I have never and asked a clarifying questions nor have I considered asking a clarifying question?
Interesting assertion.

If someone says something and it seems to entail X. I may point this out to the person. That their belief does or seems to entail X. And so we work from there. I don't know if you have the same way of looking at things as he does, so I have no idea if how you think entails X. I was communicating with him and in the context of what I think his belief and way of thinking is.

Okay. BUT, BEFORE I like to 'move on', or 'work from there', I, FIRST, like to DISCOVER and ASCERTAIN IF what one is SAYING and CLAIMING is what 'that one' BELIEVES is true or just THINKS is true, and then I would 'move on' and ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION/S regarding what, EXACTLY, 'their' BELIEF or THOUGHT ACTUALLY 'entails'.

That seems like a fair self-assessment.

I PREFER 'them' INFORMING 'me', rather than 'me' TELLING 'them', what 'their' OWN 'thoughts', 'presumptions', or 'beliefs' ENTAIL, EXACTLY.

It seems like you made an exception when telling me I never consider asking clarifying questions. Aside from missing that I do in fact ask clarifying questions. But in any case you told me my thoughts. But I do see the word PREFER above. Perhaps you prefer not to do this, but can't help yourself sometimes. I don't know. I can only see you via your words on a screen.

Also, I was JUST POINTING OUT and SHOWING here that what 'you' SAID and CLAIMED could NOT be DONE, COULD ACTUALLY BE DONE. And, NOT MUCH MORE.

And I was pointing out that my statements had a context which means that the implications that you interpreted were not actually present.

Okay. What I was REFERRING TO was what "advocate" WROTE and SAID, which was;

There is no sense in which our will is free. Causality is infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.

We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. To the extent we do not understand causality, we may feel free.

The word "Will" alone is sufficient to discuss the experience of freedom.

Now, what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS here, EXACTLY, is that what the word or phrase 'will' could ACTUALLY MEAN and/or BE REFERRING TO, which could FIT IN, PERFECTLY, WITH the word or phrase 'determinism', and 'its' definition/s, and which could FIT IN WITH EVERY 'thing' ELSE, PERFECTLY, making up the GUTOE VERIFIABLE, then "adovacates" OWN personal definition/s of the 'will' word will 'not work', does NOT 'make sense', and thus IS 'gibberish'.

Does 'this', now, 'make sense', to 'you', "iwannaplato"?

I don't understand what you meant here. What does 'GUTOE' mean? Perhaps if you explained what the word 'will' could actually mean and/be referring to, such that it does what you say it would. And perhaps if you rephrased the paragraphy I italicized above, I would understand what you mean. In any case those are areas where I didn't understand.

[Wizard22]

Stop rattleing your chains

I understand the jealousy of the Plebian toward the Free-Willed. God I'm so thankful to be Absolutely Free.

Here's your media, Scalpy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igzNAzcXNBA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA8a2g6tTp0

https://i1.wp.com/www.informationlibera ... ailout.jpg