to grok free Will

[promethean75]

https://kaotic.com/video/6d772e82_20231228164219_t

What can this guy do to exercise his 'freewill' right now?

If u answer 'nothing', are u suggesting that 'freewill' kicks on only at certain times and when the brain is in some special condition?

Are u saying that the brain has to be working a certain way to have 'freewill'?

what's the difference between overactive or misfiring neurons on account of a foreign chemical presence and a neuron firing under normal circumstances without the presence of foreign chemicals?

In the former case, is the guy simply 'not there'? If not, where is he? Where's the guy who's in the body when the body isn't drugged... the one that has 'freewill'? That body certainly doesn't have 'freewill' now, so where's the guy who's normally in that body and chooses what to think and do with it?

See how you're forced into positing a cartesian soul in order to gain 'freewill' here? I'm not aksing the idealists here becuz that's what they do. I'm aksing the materialists who believe in 'freewill'.

[Wizard22]

https://kaotic.com/video/6d772e82_20231228164219_t

What can this guy do to exercise his 'freewill' right now?

If u answer 'nothing', are u suggesting that 'freewill' kicks on only at certain times and when the brain is in some special condition?

Are u saying that the brain has to be working a certain way to have 'freewill'?

what's the difference between overactive or misfiring neurons on account of a foreign chemical presence and a neuron firing under normal circumstances without the presence of foreign chemicals?

In the former case, is the guy simply 'not there'? If not, where is he? Where's the guy who's in the body when the body isn't drugged... the one that has 'freewill'? That body certainly doesn't have 'freewill' now, so where's the guy who's normally in that body and chooses what to think and do with it?

See how you're forced into positing a cartesian soul in order to gain 'freewill' here? I'm not aksing the idealists here becuz that's what they do. I'm aksing the materialists who believe in 'freewill'.

Well "Free-Will" is very much like defining God, everybody has different standards, some of which are too high to overcome, and some which are easily surpassed by most. Don't think of Free-Will as an On-Off switch, but rather as gradient lighting which you can turn the lights on to dim, medium, and bright. Another big problem is that people change their standard of proof from one argument to the next, moving the goalpost fallacy, making it a very difficult topic to pin down. So in one context, like swimming around a swimming pool, everybody can agree that he has Free-Will, but in the next context, engineering a Vacheron Constantin Reference 57260 pocket watch, only 150+ IQ German watch makers have Free-Will.

Essentially what I'm getting at is, Free-Will is relative from person to person, making it Subjective.

[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.

Agreed.
We may do as we will but we cannot will as we will.

[Sculptor]

https://kaotic.com/video/6d772e82_20231228164219_t

What can this guy do to exercise his 'freewill' right now?

He has no "free" will.
Though he wills to be free of his addiction, the addiction is a stringer causal factor.
To break the cycle of causality and to begin a new one in which he is able to resist the addiction, would require a new set of string causalities.
If is will were free he would simply never take a drug again as he wishes.

[promethean75]

"Another big problem is that people change their standard of proof from one argument to the next, moving the goalpost fallacy, making it a very difficult topic to pin down"

In fact arguments againat the existence of freewill are among the simplest, easiest and consistent arguments ever produced in philosophy. So much so that not only will a quick youtube search reveal that the vast majority of intellectuals, scientists and philosophers don't believe it exists, but also that they all center around the same recurring arguments, the same lines of reasoning, the same language, the same examples, etc.

So no, this is not some mysterious subject not so easily pinned down. Rather u still don't understand what's going on or what is meant when someone says there is no freewill. That's okay, of course.

As I've claimed before, either someone doesn't have the philosophical competence to understand the argument, or they do, but are psychologically invested against it becuz it doesn't serve their purposes. Dennet is an example of this second type. He knows it doesn't exist but he's a jolly old guy who's telling a white lie becuz he believes it'll make everybody feel better about themselves and the world. This is admirable, sure, but we should want the truth regardless of how unnerving it is.

Peterson is an example of the first type. He's such a hopelessly confused religious spaz he actually believes it exists.

[Wizard22]

"Another big problem is that people change their standard of proof from one argument to the next, moving the goalpost fallacy, making it a very difficult topic to pin down"

In fact arguments againat the existence of freewill are among the simplest, easiest and consistent arguments ever produced in philosophy. So much so that not only will a quick youtube search reveal that the vast majority of intellectuals, scientists and philosophers don't believe it exists, but also that they all center around the same recurring arguments, the same lines of reasoning, the same language, the same examples, etc.

So no, this is not some mysterious subject not so easily pinned down. Rather u still don't understand what's going on or what is meant when someone says there is no freewill. That's okay, of course.

As I've claimed before, either someone doesn't have the philosophical competence to understand the argument, or they do, but are psychologically invested against it becuz it doesn't serve their purposes. Dennet is an example of this second type. He knows it doesn't exist but he's a jolly old guy who's telling a white lie becuz he believes it'll make everybody feel better about themselves and the world. This is admirable, sure, but we should want the truth regardless of how unnerving it is.

Peterson is an example of the first type. He's such a hopelessly confused religious spaz he actually believes it exists.

Such a cop-out.

You just don't want to admit any context to which a person has Free-Will, because what it would imply about Morality, namely that people impede upon one-another and somebody needs to be "the responsible one".

[Advocate]

[quote=Wizard22 post_id=688289 time=1703927446 user_id=22733]
[quote=promethean75 post_id=688223 time=1703883016 user_id=16524]https://kaotic.com/video/6d772e82_20231228164219_t

What can this guy do to exercise his 'freewill' right now?

If u answer 'nothing', are u suggesting that 'freewill' kicks on only at certain times and when the brain is in some special condition?

Are u saying that the brain has to be working a certain way to have 'freewill'?

what's the difference between overactive or misfiring neurons on account of a foreign chemical presence and a neuron firing under normal circumstances without the presence of foreign chemicals?

In the former case, is the guy simply 'not there'? If not, where is he? Where's the guy who's in the body when the body isn't drugged... the one that has 'freewill'? That body certainly doesn't have 'freewill' now, so where's the guy who's normally in that body and chooses what to think and do with it?

See how you're forced into positing a cartesian soul in order to gain 'freewill' here? I'm not aksing the idealists here becuz that's what they do. I'm aksing the materialists who believe in 'freewill'.[/quote]
Well "Free-Will" is very much like defining God, everybody has different standards, some of which are too high to overcome, and some which are easily surpassed by most. Don't think of Free-Will as an On-Off switch, but rather as gradient lighting which you can turn the lights on to dim, medium, and bright. Another big problem is that people change their standard of proof from one argument to the next, moving the goalpost fallacy, making it a very difficult topic to pin down. So in one context, like swimming around a swimming pool, everybody can agree that he has Free-Will, but in the next context, engineering a [url=https://www.ablogtowatch.com/vacheron-c ... ket-watch/][u]Vacheron Constantin Reference 57260 pocket watch[/u][/url], only 150+ IQ German watch makers have Free-Will.

Essentially what I'm getting at is, Free-Will is relative from person to person, making it Subjective.
[/quote]

It's not relative because there is Literally no sense in which the will is free

[promethean75]

"because what it would imply about Morality, namely that people impede upon one-another and somebody needs to be "the responsible one".

We've been over this a hunerd times. People are still held accountable whether they have freewill or not. People still feel responsible for what they are and do whether they have freewill or not. Why? Becuz we can't act like we don't have it. It's impossible.

[Age]

https://kaotic.com/video/6d772e82_20231228164219_t

What can this guy do to exercise his 'freewill' right now?

Here is ANOTHER example of HOW 'these people', BACK THEN, STILL had NOT YET WORKED OUT what the words 'free will' ACTUALLY MEANT and REFERRED TO, EXACTLY.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN in that video is 'free will' being EXERCISED.

What do 'you' even think or BELIEVE the words 'free will' to MEAN or to be REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, "promethean75"?

If u answer 'nothing', are u suggesting that 'freewill' kicks on only at certain times and when the brain is in some special condition?

Are u saying that the brain has to be working a certain way to have 'freewill'?

what's the difference between overactive or misfiring neurons on account of a foreign chemical presence and a neuron firing under normal circumstances without the presence of foreign chemicals?

In the former case, is the guy simply 'not there'? If not, where is he? Where's the guy who's in the body when the body isn't drugged... the one that has 'freewill'? That body certainly doesn't have 'freewill' now, so where's the guy who's normally in that body and chooses what to think and do with it?

WHY do 'you' even PRESUME or BELIEVE that 'free will' is NOT 'there'?

See how you're forced into positing a cartesian soul in order to gain 'freewill' here?

NO, but I can CLEARLY SEEN that 'you' HAVE, ARE MAINTAINING, and HOLDING ONTO A BELIEF here.

I'm not aksing the idealists here becuz that's what they do. I'm aksing the materialists who believe in 'freewill'.

[Age]

https://kaotic.com/video/6d772e82_20231228164219_t

What can this guy do to exercise his 'freewill' right now?

If u answer 'nothing', are u suggesting that 'freewill' kicks on only at certain times and when the brain is in some special condition?

Are u saying that the brain has to be working a certain way to have 'freewill'?

what's the difference between overactive or misfiring neurons on account of a foreign chemical presence and a neuron firing under normal circumstances without the presence of foreign chemicals?

In the former case, is the guy simply 'not there'? If not, where is he? Where's the guy who's in the body when the body isn't drugged... the one that has 'freewill'? That body certainly doesn't have 'freewill' now, so where's the guy who's normally in that body and chooses what to think and do with it?

See how you're forced into positing a cartesian soul in order to gain 'freewill' here? I'm not aksing the idealists here becuz that's what they do. I'm aksing the materialists who believe in 'freewill'.

Well "Free-Will" is very much like defining God, everybody has different standards, some of which are too high to overcome, and some which are easily surpassed by most. Don't think of Free-Will as an On-Off switch, but rather as gradient lighting which you can turn the lights on to dim, medium, and bright.

But WHY NOT JUST DEFINE the 'things', which are sometimes known as 'God' AND 'free will', FOR JUST WHO and/or WHAT 'they' ARE, EXACTLY?

WHY 'pussy foot' around the issue here, as some might say?

Another big problem is that people change their standard of proof from one argument to the next, moving the goalpost fallacy, making it a very difficult topic to pin down.

'This' IS a VERY GOOD POINT 'you' BRING UP and RAISE here "wizard22".

So in one context, like swimming around a swimming pool, everybody can agree that he has Free-Will, but in the next context, engineering a Vacheron Constantin Reference 57260 pocket watch, only 150+ IQ German watch makers have Free-Will.

Essentially what I'm getting at is, Free-Will is relative from person to person, making it Subjective.

Which IS the EXACT SAME WITH EVERY 'thing'. As, OBVIOUSLY, because absolutely EVERY 'thing' is relative to the observer, EVERY 'thing' is 'subjective'.

BUT 'this' is JUST Natural, and 'this' IS HOW 'objectivity' IS FOUND, ARRIVED AT, and KNOWN, AS WELL, ANYWAY.

[Age]

https://kaotic.com/video/6d772e82_20231228164219_t

What can this guy do to exercise his 'freewill' right now?

He has no "free" will.

Which, TO 'you', MEANS that 'you' ALSO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO 'free' will.

Which then MEANS 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' 'you' SAY and WRITE here. Thus, EVERY 'thing' 'you' have SAID and WRITTEN following MY WORDS 'I' HAVE HAD CONTROL OVER, and thus AM CONTROLLING.

And, IF 'you' EVER come to UNDERSTAND WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, then 'this' WILL MAKE PERFECT SENSE, TO 'you'.

Until THEN 'I' WILL LEAVE 'you' somewhat BEFUDDLED here.

Though he wills to be free of his addiction, the addiction is a stringer causal factor.
To break the cycle of causality and to begin a new one in which he is able to resist the addiction, would require a new set of string causalities.

HOW could A so-called 'new set of string causalities' JUST APPEAR?

By definition 'causality' MEANS, or REFERS TO, JUST ONE, so-called, STRING, or CHAIN, OF 'causes' ONLY, IN One Reality.

If is will were free he would simply never take a drug again as he wishes.

ONCE AGAIN, the WHOLE ACTUALLY MEANING OF 'free will' AND 'causality' HAS BEEN COMPLETELY LOST and MISUNDERSTOOD here.

But 'each' to 'their' OWN, as some would say.

[Wizard22]

"because what it would imply about Morality, namely that people impede upon one-another and somebody needs to be "the responsible one".

We've been over this a hunerd times. People are still held accountable whether they have freewill or not. People still feel responsible for what they are and do whether they have freewill or not. Why? Becuz we can't act like we don't have it. It's impossible.

So remind me then: how is it impossible to "have free-will" apart from "merely acting like it"?

'This' IS a VERY GOOD POINT 'you' BRING UP and RAISE here "wizard22".

[Wizard22]

But WHY NOT JUST DEFINE the 'things', which are sometimes known as 'God' AND 'free will', FOR JUST WHO and/or WHAT 'they' ARE, EXACTLY?

WHY 'pussy foot' around the issue here, as some might say?

Because people have to stick to one argument and point at a time. If people can't agree on swimming being an act of free-will, then they certainly won't agree to infinitely complexity of God, or "having Free-Will" existentially or materially.

[promethean75]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2023/ ... e-will.cnn

Smerconish had Sapolsky on yesterday. Lol imagine what this did to his poor audience. Normally he's doing trivial stuff and then he gets a guy on who drops a brain bomb like this. CNN viewers be like 'wait hold up. Say that again. Yeah all that stuff u just said.'

Smerconish has no clue what's going on here. U can deduce this by the kinds of questions he's asking. It means he can't understand what homeboy is saying.

[Age]

But WHY NOT JUST DEFINE the 'things', which are sometimes known as 'God' AND 'free will', FOR JUST WHO and/or WHAT 'they' ARE, EXACTLY?

WHY 'pussy foot' around the issue here, as some might say?

Because people have to stick to one argument and point at a time. If people can't agree on swimming being an act of free-will, then they certainly won't agree to infinitely complexity of God, or "having Free-Will" existentially or materially.

So, to clarify, the reason you do not define things, precisely, is because people have to stick to one argument and one point at a time, correct?

Also, there is no complexity at all in regards to God, nor anything else for that matter.