to grok free Will

[Age]

"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.

But the simplest, easiest, and consistent arguments have not necessarily sufficed here, as shown and proved for thousands of years already.

Sound and valid arguments' are the only arguments, which meet the needs and are enough and adequate here for everyone.

Since no one has yet devised a sound and valid argument here around free will and determinism, then this explains why what the actual truth is here is still remaining, hitherto when this is being written.

What the actual Truth is exactly is very simple and very easy to find and see, which can be and is found almost instantaneously. One ,however, has to be first prepared to find It.

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,

What is clearly seen here is another example of how and when what one is currently believing is true can then, quite conveniently, be found in so-called experts as well, and conversely, when one believes the opposite is true, then they cannot find the same evidence but can very easily and very simply find evidence for the contrary and in experts also.

but also that they all center around the same recurring arguments, the same lines of reasoning, the same language, the same examples, etc.

Arguments for either side have been used for millennia, which have obviously got human beings nowhere.

The same debate has been going on for centuries while all the time missing the fact that there it might not even be a case of 'free will' or 'determinism' at all.

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.

This one believes so much and absolutely that it has no free will at all that it believes, for example, that it has no choice but to masturbate in front of children, that it has no choice but to complain that there is nothing wrong with doing this, and that it has no choice at all but to blame the children when it gets caught and to blame them for when it ends up before the courts and for when it is in prison.

"promethean75" will most likely continue to not tell others what 'freewill' is actually, which there is supposedly none of at all, but then it is trying so hard to argue for something which is not true nor right at all.

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.

And we can clearly see above the purpose of why this one is so physiologically invested in their being no free will at all. It would serve this one's purpose of not accepting and not taking any responsibility at all for what it has done, in the past.

Also, the argument being talked about here is not a sound and valid argument, and therefore is not worthy of being repeated. That argument is only said and used when one is trying to support a current belief of theirs, which serves their purpose.

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.

Why do you think or believe that being told free will exists would many anyone feel better about them self, (and the world, whatever this means)?

This is admirable, sure, but we should want the truth regardless of how unnerving it is.

Is wanting the Truth that you could have had a choice to not do what you did "promethean75" unnerving to you?

If yes, then is this why you are psychologically against it?

But if wanting the Truth here is not unnerving to you is it because you believe that you already have the Truth and that your own version is absolutely and irrefutably true?

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

And 'you', "promethean75" actually believe that free will does not exist in any way, shape, nor form, correct?

[Age]

"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.

But holding others accountable is very, very different from one accepting and being accountable for their own mis/behavior.

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, to you, you cannot act like you do not have free will, and it is impossible for you to do so, although you have absolutely no free will at all, correct?

If correct, then you also have to believe that there is no free will although there could be free will, right?

if this is not right, and the absolute and irrefutable Truth is that there is no free will, then why were you born to know what the actual Truth is while others were not?

[Wizard22]

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.

Fallacy #1 We cannot intend different intentions
Yes, we can, humans can knowingly go against instinct/reflex through training and knowing suppression.
Like training soldiers to fight an oncoming cavalry charge when their cowardly instincts 'intend' them to run away.

Fallacy #2 Infinite regress of causality, always prior causes
This is a basic philosophical fallacy. Previous causes are as hypothetical as present "Causes".
Neither discount Free-Will.

Fallacy #3 Responsibility doesn't make sense
It doesn't make sense when you have an agenda to avoid responsibility.
Every human wants to "take responsibility" for enjoying their birthday cake.
Nobody wants to "take responsibility" for causing a violent car crash.

Fallacy #4 The Environment did it!
How do "environmental causes allow" a person in poverty to rise up?
At what point are humans, or are they not, "part of" the environment? How is this distinguished?
Hint: It's entirely selective, like #4, humans have confirmation bias, 'responsible' when its good for me,
And "the environment did it!" like "God did it!" when it's bad for me.

[Wizard22]

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.

No...I define things "precisely" one point and argument at a time. 'God' is a concept that requires lifetimes of work to unravel and deconstruct. I'm not getting into "precisely" defining God right now, right here. Instead, stick to the topic, Free-Will. Duhhh, it's common sense!

[Age]

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.

No...I define things "precisely" one point and argument at a time. 'God' is a concept that requires lifetimes of work to unravel and deconstruct.

But as soon as one works out, fully, who and what the God word has been referring to, exactly, which may only take half of a lifetime, or more, or less, then this could be taught to children, who also come to learn and understand this before they reach the middle of a child's life.

Also, once one learns and understands how to find the actual Truth of things, so-called unraveling and deconstructing the so-called 'concept' of God can happen almost instantaneously.

See, once these things are learned, understood, and being taught, then children will learn, and understand, automatically and unknowingly, like how you learned the words and the language that you did.

I'm not getting into "precisely" defining God right now, right here.

Okay.

Instead, stick to the topic, Free-Will. Duhhh, it's common sense!

I just asked you a question, for clarity, based solely on what you said and wrote here.

Now, as for 'free-will', will you define 'this', precisely?

Could I 'stick to the topic' anymore, now, and here?

[Wizard22]

But as soon as one works out, fully, who and what the God word has been referring to, exactly, which may only take half of a lifetime, or more, or less, then this could be taught to children, who also come to learn and understand this before they reach the middle of a child's life.

Also, once one learns and understands how to find the actual Truth of things, so-called unraveling and deconstructing the so-called 'concept' of God can happen almost instantaneously.

See, once these things are learned, understood, and being taught, then children will learn, and understand, automatically and unknowingly, like how you learned the words and the language that you did.

You're assuming Humanity would agree on a shared definition of God. They don't. They never have. They likely never will. It's too political an issue. Abrahamic fanatics kill each-other over the Authority to Define God. It's literally a deadly topic to enter into.

I just asked you a question, for clarity, based solely on what you said and wrote here.

Now, as for 'free-will', will you define 'this', precisely?

Could I 'stick to the topic' anymore, now, and here?

Here is a simple definition from me:

Free-Will is the ability for any biological organism to move freely, act freely, and/or think freely. Freedom is relative, from one organism to the next. Most freedom is perceived and recognized as the highest ability to move, act, and think: Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Omniscience.

[Age]

But as soon as one works out, fully, who and what the God word has been referring to, exactly, which may only take half of a lifetime, or more, or less, then this could be taught to children, who also come to learn and understand this before they reach the middle of a child's life.

Also, once one learns and understands how to find the actual Truth of things, so-called unraveling and deconstructing the so-called 'concept' of God can happen almost instantaneously.

See, once these things are learned, understood, and being taught, then children will learn, and understand, automatically and unknowingly, like how you learned the words and the language that you did.

You're assuming Humanity would agree on a shared definition of God.

Why would you not?

They don't.

Of course you do not, in the days when this was being written.

They never have.

Okay, if you say so.

They likely never will.

So, are you now assuming that they might?

It's too political an issue.

So, the very thing most of the countries are run on and by, that is; politics, is the very reason why you human beings are presumed would not agree on just one definition.

Have you considered that when a sound and valid argument is formulated, based on, or concludes, a definition of God, then there is not a human being who could refute it?

If no, then if you do, then you will realize that if, and when, that argument is formulated, then everyone could agree upon and accept it.

Abrahamic fanatics kill each-other over the Authority to Define God. It's literally a deadly topic to enter into.

Okay, if you say so. But is this conclusion for all of 'humanity', that is; all human beings, or just for some only?

I just asked you a question, for clarity, based solely on what you said and wrote here.

Now, as for 'free-will', will you define 'this', precisely?

Could I 'stick to the topic' anymore, now, and here?

Here is a simple definition from me:

Free-Will is the ability for any biological organism to move freely, act freely, and/or think freely.

Okay, a simpler definition from me however is somewhat different.

Anyway, how could biological organisms, which are obviously made up of and out of physical matter be able to move freely and/or act freely?

Physical matter 'bumps' into itself, not allowing absolute free movement or absolute free action.

Also, considering the fact of where 'thought' originates, or arises, from, exactly is there really any actual ability to 'think freely'?

Freedom is relative, from one organism to the next.

Okay.

Most freedom is perceived and recognized as the highest ability to move, act, and think: Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Omniscience.

Okay, now 'this' fits in perfectly. So, thank you 'this' is very helpful, and so might come in very handy, as some might say.

[Wizard22]

Why would you not?

Think a moment about what-if the world of humanity could possibly agree on a single Authoritative source or Man for all things God related... right now Abrahamics squabble, bicker, argue, about which Bible/Torah/Quran is true. But let's say they could agree. Then the Authority of God would rule over billions and billions of human people. That would the highest political power on Earth. Anybody who doubts God, or resists the Abrahamic religions, would be overrun. China would be dominated. Indigenous tribes would be dominated. Earth would be dominated by one grand political-religious-theocratic power. Billions of people would obey one Authority.

Simply put, that's more power than anybody can imagine. That's what you're getting at. Why isn't it possible? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying, you'd likely face brutal and vicious, deadly wars, to obtain and build such a conglomeration of centralized Authority. People aren't going to listen to logical, sound, valid arguments, at a point....because there's more to political power and persuasion than simply logic. There is appeal to emotion, to seducing the illogical and irrational compulsion of the masses.

Okay, a simpler definition from me however is somewhat different.

Anyway, how could biological organisms, which are obviously made up of and out of physical matter be able to move freely and/or act freely?

Physical matter 'bumps' into itself, not allowing absolute free movement or absolute free action.

Also, considering the fact of where 'thought' originates, or arises, from, exactly is there really any actual ability to 'think freely'?

As already mentioned, physical movement is relative to types of elemental substance: Plasma, Gas, Liquid, Solid. A bird flaps its wings and creates lift which enables it to fly, through air resistance. Its movement is a function within its environment (the air, a gas). Fish swim in water, rivers, oceans, liquid. Again, its movement is relative to its environment. A human cannot fly as well as birds, nor swim as well as fish. Hence, Humans technically have less 'Free-Will' within those environments, all else equal.

[Age]

Why would you not?

Think a moment about what-if the world of humanity could possibly agree on a single Authoritative source or Man for all things God related...

Okay. But I had already done this.

I also already knew the answer previously.

right now Abrahamics squabble, bicker, argue, about which Bible/Torah/Quran is true.

From what I have observed, 'right now' in the days when this is being written, all of you adult human beings squabble, bicker, and argue not just about and over which theology texts are true and right but also about and over a lot of scientific, and history, texts and writings.

But let's say they could agree.

Okay. They could agree.

And, I know how, exactly.

Then the Authority of God would rule over billions and billions of human people.

Which would be exactly what every one of them wanted, and is loving.

See, I already know who and what you call the 'Authority of God' is, exactly.

That would the highest political power on Earth.

Yes I totally agree.

Anybody who doubts God, or resists the Abrahamic religions, would be overrun.

What do you mean by 'overrun'?

Like by a truck or something similar, or by something else?

China would be dominated.

By who, and says who?

Indigenous tribes would be dominated.

By who, and are/were they not already, in the days when this is being written?

Earth would be dominated by one grand political-religious-theocratic power.

Why do you presume and claim this, here?

Billions of people would obey one Authority.

Yes, and as I said previously, which would be loved as this is exactly how every one of them wants it.

Simply put, that's more power than anybody can imagine.

But it has already been imagined.

And, is actually happening and occurring, by the way.

That's what you're getting at.

But how can 'that' be what 'I' am getting at when 'I' am not the one who said and claimed 'that'?

'That' is what you said and claimed, and thus 'that' is what you were getting at.

Why isn't it possible? I'm not saying it's impossible,

Are you aware that you are answering your own question here?

but I am saying, you'd likely face brutal and vicious, deadly wars, to obtain and build such a conglomeration of centralized Authority.

But on the contrary, how it all actually unfolds, came to exist, and/or takes shape was done in the exact opposite way.

That is why it works, and is/was loved and wanted by every one.

People aren't going to listen to logical, sound, valid arguments, at a point....

Okay, if you say so.

But will you inform us of why you are not going to listen to logical, sound and valid arguments?

And, what do you mean by, 'at a point'?

Do you mean that there is not 'one point' in the whole of the Universe that people are not going to listen to, even if logical sound and valid argument/s were presented?

because there's more to political power and persuasion than simply logic.

I agree, some form of deceived and deception is usually needed to 'political power and persuasion' over others.

And this is why absolutely nothing like this is used, wanted, nor even used.

There is appeal to emotion, to seducing the illogical and irrational compulsion of the masses.

Okay. We could try this, right?

Okay, a simpler definition from me however is somewhat different.

Anyway, how could biological organisms, which are obviously made up of and out of physical matter be able to move freely and/or act freely?

Physical matter 'bumps' into itself, not allowing absolute free movement or absolute free action.

Also, considering the fact of where 'thought' originates, or arises, from, exactly is there really any actual ability to 'think freely'?

As already mentioned, physical movement is relative to types of elemental substance: Plasma, Gas, Liquid, Solid.

As already mentioned these are physical things, right?

A bird flaps its wings and creates lift which enables it to fly, through air resistance. Its movement is a function within its environment (the air, a gas). Fish swim in water, rivers, oceans, liquid. Again, its movement is relative to its environment. A human cannot fly as well as birds, nor swim as well as fish.

Again, absolutely every thing is relative to the observer.

Hence, Humans technically have less 'Free-Will' within those environments, all else equal.

Oh, do you imagine or believe that 'free will' has to do with the visible environments and the physical movements of bodies alone?

[Wizard22]

What do you mean by 'overrun'?

I mean that the autonomy, distinct cultures and societies, which are not Abrahamic and believing in God, would be overruled and eventually invaded by Abrahamic people, since the non-Abrahamic people would be compelled by the supposed "Authority of God".

By who, and says who?

By Abrahamics, because there are already necessary elements within Abrahamic which are fanatic about proselytization. In other words, these types will confront and overwhelm all doubters and non-believers of the Authority of God.

Are you aware that you are answering your own question here?

Yep...

But on the contrary, how it all actually unfolds, came to exist, and/or takes shape was done in the exact opposite way.

That is why it works, and is/was loved and wanted by every one.

I doubt that it would be "wanted" by the doubters and non-believers of God, or the representational Authority of God.

Okay, if you say so.

But will you inform us of why you are not going to listen to logical, sound and valid arguments?

And, what do you mean by, 'at a point'?

Do you mean that there is not 'one point' in the whole of the Universe that people are not going to listen to, even if logical sound and valid argument/s were presented?

It can be logical, sound, and valid, that a person should exercise or ought to eat a healthier diet of food...that doesn't mean they will. There are many aspects of life that logic cannot address or influence, namely, the Unknown and Chaotic areas of existence. This includes the Future, the choices that eventually open up to people that are not accessible now. Furthermore, it takes strong acts of will to do the things that they logically 'ought' to do.

In chess, you 'ought' to make the best move every time, to win a game. That doesn't mean humans or even AI are capable of such. Logic is not a holy grail for anything.

Okay. We could try this, right?

It is already tried, hence why billions of humans already do believe in the Monotheistic-Abrahamic God.

As already mentioned these are physical things, right?

Yes.

Oh, do you imagine or believe that 'free will' has to do with the visible environments and the physical movements of bodies alone?

No, Free-Will applies to all that is unknown and invisible as well.

In fact, that is where Free-Will flourishes, beyond what is currently imaginable.

[Age]

What do you mean by 'overrun'?

I mean that the autonomy, distinct cultures and societies, which are not Abrahamic and believing in God, would be overruled and eventually invaded by Abrahamic people, since the non-Abrahamic people would be compelled by the supposed "Authority of God".

you have got this here absolutely Wrong.

By who, and says who?

By Abrahamics, because there are already necessary elements within Abrahamic which are fanatic about proselytization. In other words, these types will confront and overwhelm all doubters and non-believers of the Authority of God.

you could not be more Wrong here, as well.

I suggest you stop looking and reading from preconceptions, presumptions, nor beliefs. Then that way you may see what is actually being said and pointed out.

Or, maybe you do not want to read and listen to what another is saying and explaining here, right?

Are you aware that you are answering your own question here?

Yep...

But on the contrary, how it all actually unfolds, came to exist, and/or takes shape was done in the exact opposite way.

That is why it works, and is/was loved and wanted by every one.

I doubt that it would be "wanted" by the doubters and non-believers of God, or the representational Authority of God.

And you are absolutely free to keep doubting, and to keep never seeking any actual clarifications nor clarity here also.

Okay, if you say so.

But will you inform us of why you are not going to listen to logical, sound and valid arguments?

And, what do you mean by, 'at a point'?

Do you mean that there is not 'one point' in the whole of the Universe that people are not going to listen to, even if logical sound and valid argument/s were presented?

It can be logical, sound, and valid, that a person should exercise or ought to eat a healthier diet of food...that doesn't mean they will.

Either it is logical, sound, and valid, or it is not. So, which one is it?

There are many aspects of life that logic cannot address or influence, namely, the Unknown and Chaotic areas of existence.

But there are no, alleged, unknown and chaotic areas of existence. Well not to me anyway.

But i totally understand how and why you still absolutely believe that 'they' do exist to and for you.

This includes the Future, the choices that eventually open up to people that are not accessible now.

But once one learns how, why, and what 'choices' eventually can, will, and do open up, which were not accessible to you people, back in the days when this was being written, then views and perspectives change.

Furthermore, it takes strong acts of will to do the things that they logically 'ought' to do.

If you say so.

In chess, you 'ought' to make the best move every time, to win a game.

Of course that is only if you want to 'win' 'a game'.

In the future to you people, when this is being written, 'winning' was never 'the game'. Having fun and just playing and enjoying was 'the game'.

That doesn't mean humans or even AI are capable of such. Logic is not a holy grail for anything.

Okay. I do not recall anyone here saying that it was.

Okay. We could try this, right?

It is already tried, hence why billions of humans already do believe in the Monotheistic-Abrahamic God.

Is this the only reason why billions of you human beings already do believe in God?

As already mentioned these are physical things, right?

Yes.

Oh, do you imagine or believe that 'free will' has to do with the visible environments and the physical movements of bodies alone?

No, Free-Will applies to all that is unknown and invisible as well.

In fact, that is where Free-Will flourishes, beyond what is currently imaginable.

But where 'free will' actually exists is already known, fully, and thus very well.

[Wizard22]

Or, maybe you do not want to read and listen to what another is saying and explaining here, right?

I'd be more convinced if you explain in detail, exactly why and how I am "wrong" first.

And you are absolutely free to keep doubting, and to keep never seeking any actual clarifications nor clarity here also.

If you want Faith, move to Religion. This is Philosophy, we do a lot of Doubting here.

Either it is logical, sound, and valid, or it is not. So, which one is it?

It is logical, sound, and valid that I should or ought to start exercising regularly again, like I did in my 20s...but I'm still not going to. Or at least, not without great effort and will to change my daily habits.

But there are no, alleged, unknown and chaotic areas of existence. Well not to me anyway.

We'll see about that.

Okay. I do not recall anyone here saying that it was.

The way you argued for the logical validity and persuasion of the Authority of God, made it seem like so. I don't think it's necessarily a solution for any or everything. Again, God has many, countless different meanings and conceptualizations.

Is this the only reason why billions of you human beings already do believe in God?

I think most humans believe in God, because of the fear of mortality and dying. That is a purely emotional drive, not logical, not rational. I guess the case could be made that 'God-Itself' is a form of attempting to rationalize the fear of death. If that's true, then Logic is a tool, not a solution. It is a means of "solving" for the fear of death, which remains incomplete, because it never completely alleviates the fear of death because the fear of death recurs often throughout life.

But where 'free will' actually exists is already known, fully, and thus very well.

Oh, and where is that??

[Age]

Or, maybe you do not want to read and listen to what another is saying and explaining here, right?

I'd be more convinced if you explain in detail, exactly why and how I am "wrong" first.

I would have accepted this more if you expressed earlier that you would like for me to explain, in detail, to you, how and why you were wrong, before.

Also, what would you supposedly be more convinced of here, exactly?

Now, if you would like me to explain, in detail, exactly how and why you are 'wrong', then I suggest you ask a clarifying question, and be as specific as you can be. Then that way less confusion will prevail.

And you are absolutely free to keep doubting, and to keep never seeking any actual clarifications nor clarity here also.

If you want Faith, move to Religion. This is Philosophy, we do a lot of Doubting here.

And as i just said and pointed out, you can keep doubting for as long as you like, but if you never seek out clarification, this is one of the best excuses to just keep doubting.

See, if you do not seek clarification of what you currently presume and/or believe is not true, then you cannot have your beliefs wilted away nor destroyed.

Either it is logical, sound, and valid, or it is not. So, which one is it?

It is logical, sound, and valid that I should or ought to start exercising regularly again, like I did in my 20s...but I'm still not going to.

Okay, besides this of being absolutely nothing at all to do with any morality issue, this here might well be highlighting the 'free will' that actually exists.

Also, what is 'it', exactly, which is stopping you doing from what you say and claim you know you should or ought to be doing?

Is 'it' further logical, sound, and valid 'advice', or rather illogical, unsound, and/or invalid 'advice', which you are actually listening to and following?

Or at least, not without great effort and will to change my daily habits.

Okay, you are absolutely free to choose to do, or not do, absolutely whatever you like, right?

But there are no, alleged, unknown and chaotic areas of existence. Well not to me anyway.

We'll see about that.

Okay, do you have any idea when we will see about 'that'?

Okay. I do not recall anyone here saying that it was.

The way you argued for the logical validity and persuasion of the Authority of God, made it seem like so.

But by definition the word 'seem' means or at least implies that what 'seems' to be true is not necessarily true at all, right?

Or do you see and view things differently here?

I don't think it's necessarily a solution for any or everything. Again, God has many, countless different meanings and conceptualizations.

But only One could be actually True and Right, right?

Is this the only reason why billions of you human beings already do believe in God?

I think most humans believe in God, because of the fear of mortality and dying.

Ah okay.

And where exactly did you human beings get this Truly irrational fear from, exactly?

That is a purely emotional drive, not logical, not rational.

So, are you saying here that the emotions within 'you' is what drives you to believe, and/or disbelieve some things, even when you have no proof at all either way?

I guess the case could be made that 'God-Itself' is a form of attempting to rationalize the fear of death.

But what is there 'to, supposedly, fear', exactly?

If that's true, then Logic is a tool, not a solution. It is a means of "solving" for the fear of death, which remains incomplete, because it never completely alleviates the fear of death because the fear of death recurs often throughout life.

Because some thing appears and/or recurs then does this mean that 'it' is always rational?

I have still yet to hear of any actual reason why you older human beings, and only you older ones, have a so-called 'fear of death'.

Obviously 'fear' is an emotion, but what exactly is 'it' that you people 'fear' in relation to just not being consciously aware anymore. Obviously this is all that happens, and just as obvious is if there one is not consciously aware anymore, then there is no emotion, nor even a thought, being consciously aware of.

Also, and again just as obvious, the visible physical matter of the human body just changes in shape and form, just like it always has, and always will, here in this One and only place called the Universe, Existence, Life, and/or Heaven or Hell.

But where 'free will' actually exists is already known, fully, and thus very well.

Oh, and where is that??

Within you human beings, and existing exactly in the way that it does. That is; by providing the 'ability to choose'.

[Wizard22]

Also, what would you supposedly be more convinced of here, exactly?

Now, if you would like me to explain, in detail, exactly how and why you are 'wrong', then I suggest you ask a clarifying question, and be as specific as you can be. Then that way less confusion will prevail.

I don't care what is called "wrong" without the reasons and beliefs why and how it is wrong.

Also, what is 'it', exactly, which is stopping you doing from what you say and claim you know you should or ought to be doing?

Lack of motivation—motivations change frequently in life.

Is 'it' further logical, sound, and valid 'advice', or rather illogical, unsound, and/or invalid 'advice', which you are actually listening to and following?

It would be logical and sound advice, but not completely valid. Validity ought to take into account conflicting motivations when suggesting what a person 'ought' to do. Thus, it would be pointless to give people proscriptions, advice, and recommendations that they will not actually follow through with. It's a waste of time of the prescriber and the receiver. Ideally, suggestions should coincide with somebody open to suggestion, and is willing to obey or be commanded, to the point he/she can change daily behaviors and habit.

Okay, you are absolutely free to choose to do, or not do, absolutely whatever you like, right?

Correct.

Okay, do you have any idea when we will see about 'that'?

Within a month or year.

But by definition the word 'seem' means or at least implies that what 'seems' to be true is not necessarily true at all, right?

Or do you see and view things differently here?

I don't know if you have any Theocratic Authority yet, any ability to speak coherently and accurately about God-concepts.

You follow conversations and debates; I've not seen you lead any yet. If you have something to say about God, then by all means do so, in the correct thread and context. This thread is about Free-Will.

But only One could be actually True and Right, right?

No...

Let's say that God were a two-sided statue. On one side of the statue, is the figure of a woman. On the other side of the statue, is the figure of a man. Let's further say that half of humanity could only see one side of the statue, without moving to see the other side. So half of humanity would claim that God is female, because they could not see the male side. The other half of humanity would claim that God is male, because they could not see the female side. Unless a person could walk all the way around the statue, and see both sides, he would stay ignorant as to the Nature and Reality of God. You would need to have, understand, accept, and know All perspectives, to understand God, not just one side.

This is the exact problem of God, and why there is not "One True and Right" perspective, because people remain on one side of the statue without seeing the other side. It's a matter of lack of perspective, knowing, and consciousness. One object, one statue, can appear opposite, based on your subjective perspective to it. Humanity is ingrained in this completely-subjective perspective, unable or unwilling to accept ulterior or contradictory perspectives. The selfish mindset is: "My perspective is correct, and everybody else's is wrong".

Greater understanding requires greater perspective.
Greatest understanding requires greatest perspective.
This is why there is no "One" perspective—or you would require the totality of All perspectives possible and imaginable.

Oh okay.

And where exactly did you human beings get this Truly irrational fear from, exactly?

Genetic Instinct, Biology, Nature

So, are you saying here that the emotions within 'you' is what drives you to believe, and/or disbelieve some things, even when you have no proof at all either way?

Emotions influence Confirmation-Bias, compelling people to favor illogical premises and conclusions.

Most people, and animals, trust their 'instincts' over pure logical validity, because logical validity is counter-intuitive to much of experience. Humans don't necessarily "The Best" way of doing things, how to act, how to live life, etc.

But what is there 'to, supposedly, fear', exactly?

Losing consciousness forever, being disconnected from all you love and care about, all you value in life stripped from you.

Because some thing appears and/or recurs then does this mean that 'it' is always rational?

I have still yet to hear of any actual reason why you older human beings, and only you older ones, have a so-called 'fear of death'.

Obviously 'fear' is an emotion, but what exactly is 'it' that you people 'fear' in relation to just not being consciously aware anymore. Obviously this is all that happens, and just as obvious is if there one is not consciously aware anymore, then there is no emotion, nor even a thought, being consciously aware of.

Also, and again just as obvious, the visible physical matter of the human body just changes in shape and form, just like it always has, and always will, here in this One and only place called the Universe, Existence, Life, and/or Heaven or Hell.

I don't know—you're referring to the mystery of Life and Death. It leads to attachment to God as a concept. Humans mistake Consciousness for Life, as-if somebody in a comatose state, or asleep, is not alive. So there is a conflation between consciousness and life. Humanity seems more attached to Consciousness than to Life, as a result. Why is there an attachment? That's a good question. I know How there is an attachment, through genetic reflex and instinctive compulsion. Instincts form the brunt of action and will.

I think the attachment to Consciousness, is because people and individuals, don't want to be forgotten.

Consciousness wants to be remembered forever,
In the same way life wants to reproduce forever.

Within you human beings, and existing exactly in the way that it does. That is; by providing the 'ability to choose'.

Interesting...

[Age]

Also, what would you supposedly be more convinced of here, exactly?

Now, if you would like me to explain, in detail, exactly how and why you are 'wrong', then I suggest you ask a clarifying question, and be as specific as you can be. Then that way less confusion will prevail.

I don't care what is called "wrong" without the reasons and beliefs why and how it is wrong.

Okay. So, without any clarifying question asked, then there is literally absolutely nothing to answer, thus nor to clarify here.

Also, what is 'it', exactly, which is stopping you doing from what you say and claim you know you should or ought to be doing?

Lack of motivation—motivations change frequently in life.

Okay. I agree absolutely.

Also, a lack of motivation to do what is Right and/or good, as can be clearly seen here, is just one of the many consequences of having been brought up in an abusive environment as a child.

Which makes doing only what is Right, and good, so much more important.

Is 'it' further logical, sound, and valid 'advice', or rather illogical, unsound, and/or invalid 'advice', which you are actually listening to and following?

It would be logical and sound advice, but not completely valid. Validity ought to take into account conflicting motivations when suggesting what a person 'ought' to do. Thus, it would be pointless to give people proscriptions, advice, and recommendations that they will not actually follow through with. It's a waste of time of the prescriber and the receiver. Ideally, suggestions should coincide with somebody open to suggestion, and is willing to obey or be commanded, to the point he/she can change daily behaviors and habit.

But you have just said, and shown, that even you 'talking to' "your" own 'self' has absolutely no bearing at all, on you.

you have just shown with your 'lack of motivation' you will not listen to what is logical, sound, nor valid, but will listen to, and follow, what you tell "yourself" that is illogical, unsound, and/or invalid.

So, even suggestions with one who is open to suggestion can all happen within one body.

I found that it is the words used, within one own body, which have the greatest and most remarkable effect on life and 'the world', itself. That is; what you human beings say to "yourselves" within those human bodies, have far more power and influence than what was yet noticed and recognized, in the days when this is being written,

Okay, you are absolutely free to choose to do, or not do, absolutely whatever you like, right?

Correct.

At least 'we' agree on and accept 'this'.

So, now, it would not matter what absolutely any one said to you, which obviously includes me, here you will choose, freely, to who and what you listen to, and follow, right?

Okay, do you have any idea when we will see about 'that'?

Within a month or year.

Okay, so within a month or a year 'we' will see about whether there are no, alleged, unknown and chaotic areas of existence to me, correct?

If no, then please correct me here.

But, if this is correct, then I am not sure how this will play out.

To me, there are no unknown and chaotic areas of existence, so what could possibly change this within a year?

But by definition the word 'seem' means or at least implies that what 'seems' to be true is not necessarily true at all, right?

Or do you see and view things differently here?

I don't know if you have any Theocratic Authority yet, any ability to speak coherently and accurately about God-concepts.

You follow conversations and debates; I've not seen you lead any yet. If you have something to say about God, then by all means do so, in the correct thread and context. This thread is about Free-Will.

Are you not aware that I here just asked you to clarify whether you already knew that if something 'seems' to be true, then it is not necessarily true, at all?

But only One could be actually True and Right, right?

No...

Let's say that God were a two-sided statue.

Is this thread about 'free will' or God?

But, okay let us say that God were a two-sided statue.

Why any one would say this I am not sure, especially considering that we just say what God is actually, instead.

Anyway,

On one side of the statue, is the figure of a woman. On the other side of the statue, is the figure of a man. Let's further say that half of humanity could only see one side of the statue, without moving to see the other side. So half of humanity would claim that God is female, because they could not see the male side. The other half of humanity would claim that God is male, because they could not see the female side. Unless a person could walk all the way around the statue, and see both sides, he would stay ignorant as to the Nature and Reality of God.

And this partly, and maybe very well, explains why you human beings, in the days when this was being written, still had not yet seen and worked out who and what God is, exactly?

See, those people, back then, as I was continually saying, were just looking at a small and/or narrowed part, of the whole, and thus that is why they were only seeing, and talking about, only a part of the big Picture, as some would call It.

But, as I was also continually saying, and pointing out in and through 'their words', it was their continual presuming and believing, which was what was stopping and preventing them from seeing the whole and/or big Picture, of things.

You would need to have, understand, accept, and know All perspectives, to understand God, not just one side.

Which I have been saying and/or alluding to here.

But which obviously, so far, no believes nor accepts.

This is the exact problem of God,

But I still see no actual 'problem' of God.

But, then again, I do appear to use a very different definition for the 'problem' than most of you human beings did, back then. And, for the 'God' word as well, most likely.

But then this was and is just because I can and do use words, and their definitions, in a way, which makes up a crystal clear, or perfect, Picture of Life, and Existence, Itself.

and why there is not "One True and Right" perspective,

But there is. you human beings in the days when this was being written just had not yet evolved enough and into this way of looking at, and seeing, things, that is; in and from the One True and Right way.

because people remain on one side of the statue without seeing the other side.

I agree.

It's a matter of lack of perspective, knowing, and consciousness.

Which is just totally understandable. Because as all these sorts of things are discovered, and/or learned and passed on, you human beings, back then, were not expected to have yet learned how to look at and see things from the Truly open perspective, as I had not yet passed on 'this knowledge', to you.

One object, one statue, can appear opposite, based on your subjective perspective to it.

This is why looking at, and thus seeing, things from the Truly objective perspective provides the actual and irrefutable Truth of things, and almost immediately I will add.

But one just has to be Truly curious and seriously interested and wanting to learn and understand how to be able to see things from the Truly objective perspective.

Humanity is ingrained in this completely-subjective perspective, unable or unwilling to accept ulterior or contradictory perspectives. The selfish mindset is: "My perspective is correct, and everybody else's is wrong".

I could not agree more with you here.

However, just as human beings evolved learning to become 'ingrained' with 'that way' of looking and thus seeing things, they can, will, and do keep evolving, and learning, and do become 'ingrained' with a 'much better way' of looking at, and thus seeing, things.

They actually come full circles, as will be discovered and learned, soon enough.

Greater understanding requires greater perspective.
Greatest understanding requires greatest perspective.
This is why there is no "One" perspective—or you would require the totality of All perspectives possible and imaginable.

And 'this' is, and was, easily done, and so simply I will add.

Once just needs to first learn how-to.

See, once one learns how to do something, then just doing it becomes simpler, and easier, and the more it is done, the simpler and easier it keeps become. Until it is just done so naturally, that is seems and appears 'ingrained'.

Oh okay.

And where exactly did you human beings get this Truly irrational fear from, exactly?

Genetic Instinct, Biology, Nature

Are you sure?

I can, and would, show and prove, irrefutably, otherwise, that is; if any one is truly interested to learn, and see, this.

So, are you saying here that the emotions within 'you' is what drives you to believe, and/or disbelieve some things, even when you have no proof at all either way?

Emotions influence Confirmation-Bias, compelling people to favor illogical premises and conclusions.

I agree, wholeheartedly, that emotions can influence you, that is; if one is not yet in full control over emotions, themselves.

Most people, and animals,

People are, it could be said, are another animal.

But it is far more correct to say that you human beings are just another animal.

But it appears here that you are suggesting that people, or human beings, are not actually animals. Is this what you are suggesting here?

trust their 'instincts' over pure logical validity, because logical validity is counter-intuitive to much of experience.

1. Will you provide examples?

2. What some people say are 'instincts' are not actually 'instincts', at all.

Humans don't necessarily "The Best" way of doing things, how to act, how to live life, etc.

Was the word 'know', or something esle, meant to be in between the word 'necessarily', and the, 'the best' words here?

If it was meant to be 'know', then I agree, absolutely, that you human beings, in the days when this was being written, did not yet know what 'the best' was was of doing things. But this absolutely does not mean that you cannot learn 'the best' way of doing things.

But what is there 'to, supposedly, fear', exactly?

Losing consciousness forever, being disconnected from all you love and care about, all you value in life stripped from you.

But, you have 'lost consciousness', as you put it here. So, how you would even know;

1. That you have lost consciousness?

2. That you are disconnect from any one?

3. That all your valued, rightly or wrongly, has been so-called 'stripped' from you?

If you cannot know these things, so what, again, is 'it' exactly is there to fear here, exactly?

Because some thing appears and/or recurs then does this mean that 'it' is always rational?

I have still yet to hear of any actual reason why you older human beings, and only you older ones, have a so-called 'fear of death'.

Obviously 'fear' is an emotion, but what exactly is 'it' that you people 'fear' in relation to just not being consciously aware anymore. Obviously this is all that happens, and just as obvious is if there one is not consciously aware anymore, then there is no emotion, nor even a thought, being consciously aware of.

Also, and again just as obvious, the visible physical matter of the human body just changes in shape and form, just like it always has, and always will, here in this One and only place called the Universe, Existence, Life, and/or Heaven or Hell.

I don't know

What is 'it' that you do not know?

And, if you do want to know, then just ask the clarifying question to the answer that you would like 'to know'. That is; if there is absolutely anything here that you would like 'to know'.

—you're referring to the mystery of Life and Death.

But there is no so-called 'mystery of Life, nor of death. Well not to me anyway.

I just explained what happens in, and to you, in what was commonly, but Wrongly, referred to as 'death'. What else is there that wants to be known, and/or understood, here, or there?

It leads to attachment to God as a concept.

Well;

1. Considering the fact that none of you, when this is being written, has any real conception of who and what God is, exactly, doing or having absolutely any thing, which leads to an attachment of whatever this God thing is, exactly, would be highly not recommended to do, have, nor keep.

2. If the 'fear of death' leads to an attachment of God, as a concept, then why do even some of those young ones of you human beings who have not yet even heard of, thought over, nor talked about 'death' still have a concept of God?

3. If a 'fear of death' leads to attachment of only some concept of God, or of God only as some unknown concept, then all the better reason to rid yourselves of the Truly irrational fear of the Wrong conceived of 'death' word.

Humans mistake Consciousness for Life, as-if somebody in a comatose state, or asleep, is not alive.

Okay, if you say so.

But why do you do this?

So there is a conflation between consciousness and life. Humanity seems more attached to Consciousness than to Life, as a result. Why is there an attachment? That's a good question. I know How there is an attachment, through genetic reflex and instinctive compulsion. Instincts form the brunt of action and will.

Is it a possibility that actually you "yourself" are somewhat confused and/or conflated here?

Or, is this not a possibility, to you?

I think the attachment to Consciousness, is because people and individuals, don't want to be forgotten.

Well here is another completely Wrongly learned thing, which those human beings had evolved to have, back then, when this was being written.

Why would absolutely any one want to be 'not forgotten'?

The actual reason lies down deep within. But these human beings, once again, were just confusing and conflating their own personal 'selves' with the One and ONLY True and Real Self. Which, obviously, could never be forgotten, ever, anyway.

All of these fears human beings once had, back then, were all for absolutely no Real reason at all.

They were all based on and off absolutely False, Wrong, and/or completely distorted thinking, assumptions and beliefs.

Consciousness wants to be remembered forever,

No It does not.

Some of you human beings however might.

Consciousness, Itself, already knows that It cannot be forgotten.

In the same way life wants to reproduce forever.

Life, with capital 'l', also already knows that It is reproducing always, already.

So, no 'want' is even necessary.

Within you human beings, and existing exactly in the way that it does. That is; by providing the 'ability to choose'.

Interesting...