@Charlesdance : I don't see how that in any way contradicts my position. Since I literally AM those neurons, if "they" make me think something that IS me making me think something.
@Pyrro314 , "Fate, Time and Language"~By David Foster Wallace. Buy a copy of that book and read it. You won't regret the purchase. You have the mind to understand the formulae and the concepts. This book will give you all you need for your argument concerning Free Will. Rock on!
People that don't believe in free will simply don't understand what free will actually means. It doesn't mean we have control over everything - it means we have freedom to make decisions based on things that are generally determined. In other words we can't will what we desire, but we can choose to act on that desire. That's where something like moral culpability comes into play. To be aware of a consequence, for instance, demonstrates the will.
@pawnstar3 : well I'm pretty much saying "will power" means what you say, and "free will" as a term is misleading. I'm saying "free will" sounds like "control over everything" to people and that's probably what it ought to mean since people have this slave-wanting-freedom view of the term "free". I have both a reformed idea of "freedom" but also terms that avoid the complications, like "will power" rather than "free will". It changes the questions.
@pyrrho314 Is it safe to say that you're a compatibilist then? It seems to me that compatibilism combines the better elements of both determinism and free will and correctly states that the two can co-exist if they're defined properly.
@pawnstar3 : when I don't know something, always, I adopt a spectrum of ideas to try to cover the phenomenon. I am AT LEAST compatibilist. But as I'm not a determinist I see no reason to give up the idea that the future has multiple possibilities. So atm I am not a compatabilist, as I think there is still likely something to navigating into the future, it is not set. However, if it was proved we made no choices, I would at that point be a compatabilist because I live with will.
Freedom might be motion without limits(the ability to go any and everywhere). But, as energy can't move anywhere outside of space. And the will is trapped within by the body, which itself can only survive in a particular type of environment. So i don't believe there is a true freedom. But, the word maybe useful in some circumstances perhaps. For there is an obvious difference between a slave and a free individual, in a social context.
@enfomy "free" and "unfree" are not good terms. They have served their purpose over ages of nothing better, but really they are incoherent. There are other words that work beter, such as "bounding conditions" and "potential energy" and "degrees of motion"
I remember once reading about an experiment where they measured the timing of electrical stimuli in the brain vs the actual physical movement. The results seemed to indicated that the electrical signal in the brain fires ~.5 seconds after the action is performed. I don't remember what the source is as it was a long time ago. Just throwing that out there.
@pyrrho314 aye, it soemthing like dynamic feedback systems. like a "W" at the center peak we sit ontop a positive feedback system, on eaither side so we do not go too far is a negative feedback system. One little spark on the positive feedback system can set us into motion one way or anouther. Yet, we will nto go too far before the negative feedback system starts pushing back.
@masluxx the shape of our "W"s is our personality. What deturmines it's shape is partly genetics, and partly environment. The spark isthat might set us in motion is our will.
@sausage4mash : that question is misleading I think... because there is no first cause of anything. There is energy flowing around. When the energy is in a battery, we say it's the batteries energy, but it's just in the battery in the moment.
Saying its "governed" by previous events is not something I would do, it is however produced by previous events, obviously, as is everything.
@pyrrho314 I just think " will" is a focal point of subconscious processes ,kind of like behind this text is gates and switches ,binary code ect ect but what you see is the text .when you fight an urge ,what you perceive as an act of will is probably your mind resolving conflict and abstracting the battle and making a story of it (as minds do ) ,my guess is that the decision was already made before you knew it .
@sausage4mash : I am that unconscious part. That's where most will is. But there is a reason that the battles play out (with lots of allegory and metaphor) in the conscious mind, and that's because the conscious will is a part of the system, part of the cognitive cycle, imo. Thus a lot of will comes down to the conscious minds ability to travel into the unconscious parts and prepare them for anticipated future conditions.
@cont : That our conscious influence is small per time unit is reason to look very closely. If only 1% of our decisions were affected by conscious will, that would be a very powerful number, as it is applied strategically and over time. Also, the unconscious will is not unreasonable, merely illogical, it can be made more reliable. If it is 99% of the will, then it's ability to affect physical events is probably way way less than .001%. Still, again, strategy and time can add up.
I think we give ourselves too much credit sometimes. As Chomsky once said, we look at every other organ in our body as being machine-like except the brain. Why is that? The latest in Cognitive Neurology supports the idea that all of our actions are determined, much, in the same way you cannot help but have a certain reaction of chemicals, the brain cannot help but react in the way it was designed. Will changes as we change and Will certainly is not the cause of it's own change.
@blackcrow6667 : "it"... everything is a system. Will is meant to affect behavior, and behavior (e.g. going to a particular environment) affects the will in return. This is a cycle, systems analysis... not a "thing", "me" and a "thing", "will".
@pyrrho314 I mean, there is room to define Will for sure as I left in a comment I think the other day or whatever in one of your videos. I just think if it's too broad of a definition, you might think a breeze blowing into leaf that moved it, was done intentionally so, I think Will and Intention sort of go together and it's hard to find the source of that intention in any dynamic system especially, with such a variety of influence or interference, depending how you might see it.
@blackcrow6667 : the question I think that is more focused is directly the issue of "is more than one future possible"... that is how it seems, and that is what anti-willosophers are saying is an illusion... that there really isn't more than one possible future. That is from whence they deduce the appearance that more than one possible future is an "illusion".
@cont: Our experience implies that not only is there more than one possibility, but that we influence it, and we call that "will". Thus will is pretty much, by this encagement, synonymous with the feeling of influencing possibilities, they deny that feeling.
I don't understand what purpose that serves unless there is a will. Thus, I understand we wrongly feel in more control than we are, that as evolutionary advantages... but only if there is a real kernel will. it seems to me.
@pyrrho314 I usually don't like to respond in a deterministic way as I did with that so, I'm a little hypocritical. I see variety in Nature and I expect possibility and at some level. I want to accept that anything can happen in any way and, electrons sort of do. At the same time though, everything cannot happen at once or nothing would be done; one path has to be made in some direction so if everything is that path or algorithm, maybe the bigbang started this as a single free thought
@blackcrow6667 Imagine, all of this, the manifestation of a single thought. Imagine, a single thought, the manifestation of a lifetime. I had this idea years ago and apparently I'm not the only one and though hard to make sense of rationally, it's an interesting way to view reality.
If the will is caused via a line of external causation that stems outside of the person, or prior to the person existing, then the "will" itself (though it exists) is forced.
It is no different than having a chip implanted in your brain in which a scientist is controlling without you knowing. The chip regulates the initial electro-chemical impulses in your brain to the extent that, from that point, the causality will lead to a specific action the scientist chooses.
The brain "wills" such event, but such willing is caused by something external from it. Would we hold such a person responsible? If not, then you really need to address why a person whos "will" is caused from events before they ever existed is more "responsible".
These are the important questions to the debate...and why the "free" in "free will" is key.
@trick0171 : until you find a law of physics that explains subjective experience, you can't pretend we understand the forces of the universe sufficiently to say exactly how things are caused. If there can be a force of gravity, why can't there be some force that leads to will? As I've pointed out before, your assumption follow classical physics which is known to not hold. The search for certainty arrived at indeterminism.
Again, there is a force that leads to "will"...but that does not address the freedom part needed for responsibility.
In this video you talk about compatibilism...which has to do with determinism. Now you are talking about indeterminism ...maybe suggesting some libertarian view of free will? I would suggest that indeterminism is incompatible with any sort of willing, as acausal events are never willed events. No matter if classical or modern, free will is incoherent for all.
@trick0171 : can you not see that I am not arguing it's "free"? I don't think anything is free, nor do I think that it makes sense to use "free" as a property for "things" which I say are "systems with behavior", and not "things with properties". Nothing is "free". Do you understand my argument that talking about will power (which I have a philosophy of) is different from talking about will -freedom- (which I think is an incoherent idea)?
Then you agree that responsibility is incoherent as well? If not, then that is what I am addressing. How such "will" allows us to blame or consider ourself more deserving, etc. To hold one responsible?
@trick0171 : the definition of responsibility that relieas on metaphysical things being judged good and bad is nonsense. However, that is not the only way to calculate responsibility. One version of the term is simply identifying how some energy came to fund some physical activity. I.e. the tiger was responsible for eating the child. It's silly to consider that metaphysical moral responsibility, cause it's what tigers do. But the tiger will still be put down, held responsible.
The tiger should be put down (or if possible fixed) only to prevent further harms, not because it deserves to be put down for eating the child. Or a car will either be fixed or junked if it is too dangerous to drive. In that sense the faulty car is equally as "responsible" for an accident. This is indeed not the type of "responsibility" that the idea of free will imposes.
I would suggest that this leads to equalization being the most rational response, as no one is more deserving that another for what they have, and no one is less deserving. Would you agree with this as well?
@trick0171 : I am not advocating free will, and it's not the sort of idea that advocating "will power" imposes. In the latter case the question is if the energy came through the will or not, not a question of metaphysical responsibility-ness adhering to the actor.
I guess I'm not really sure what you are advocating with "will power". Lets assume it came "through the will"...what does that mean in terms of other philosophical questions. I can tell you what questions are important to the free will vs. no free will distinction, but what questions are important to the "will power" vs. "no will power" distinction?
@trick0171 : one, to questions in cognitive science where the physics of how thinking works is a part of the study. Questions about a proper view toward punishment and rehabilitation, as you've raised. The question of how can we best use our will. Simply having an open question about how it works that acknowledges the potency of the answer. All these things require will power to be "put to use" by a conscious being.
determinism just means you can determine what happened and what will possible happen. I don't believe the future is set... maybe very well organised by some people and focused you in to their willed path... but not set. And you still have choices... and still have determination to do something with will power. I think free resides at the point in choosing... and will power in taking action. :-) You can choose something and not do it if you have no will power to back up your free will. Pawned. Ha
@DerivedEnergy - really... what you just said proves free will. No one forced you to make a choice. You read what I wrote disagreed. That shows free will, then you used will power to say what you said. by putting your thoughs in to words. If you had zero free will. Then why did you choose to reply... why bother replying why not go it's waste of time to reply since everything is set. You made a choice, then will power to write it out. Power of the free will choice you made then turned to action
@TheaDragonSpirit ''No one forced you to make a choice. You read what I wrote disagreed. That shows free will...''
DNA spare me.
''then why did you choose to reply... why bother replying why not go it's waste of time to reply since everything is set.''
Because everything was set including my decision to respond to your comment. Just because we can safely dispense with free will it doesn't mean that all our actions are 'a waste of time'. Do you find the idea of no free will unsettling?
@DerivedEnergy - oh so your dna made you make a choice. HAHA! SURE? What if I said? Purple fish and asked what is purple fish? Would your dna go what? No purple fish is wrong... Purple fish is right? Purple is wrong? No you choose to make a problem with what I said and then you choose to act on that. YOU CHOOSE! If you remove all DNA and be aware of your own thoughs and you are in control. YOU will realise YOU choose to talk at me of YOUR view. You choose. At that point YOU choose!
@DerivedEnergy - No I don't find it unsettling I just know you have 1000's of chooses a day. And you choose to do them... and then will it, mostly subconsciously but when you become aware of your choices then you know you are making choices. So I am not bothered if I am a puppet to my DNA, if that makes me happy. But because I am aware just now by even replying that I choose to reply to you. And this is my choice. Willed in to action.
I think you have both free will and will power... free will in some choices... and will power in being determined to do something. Say if your asked... do you want to stay here or go their... he has the free will to choose what to do... and the will power to actually do it. :-)
If you're erasing the idea of personal primary causation, which I assume you would want to, and would need to do if you're going with Compatibalism, then even the small influence of the paddle would have to go to. Will as Power without either causative influence nor decision-making capacity doesn't sound like will at all.
@conferencereport : I'm not personally a compatibalist... I simply point out that the question of where the material energy is that is generating this phenomenon is pertinent if the will is free or not.
I don't really feel any need or expectation that the physics of will will "sound like will at all"... I mean, the explanation of sexual lust turns out to be the desire to make children, emotional feelings are non-sequitur in that way.
@pyrrho314 I thought you were interested in Will as a phenomenon, (as opposed to a 'thing'). I agree with you that an explanation of the 'physics' of will need not answer phenomenological questions but surely those are the questions that we're asking?
Occam's razor I put forth. Your neurons are willing you to believe in will! Alas, no other reason to assume.
Charlesdance 1 month ago
@Charlesdance : I don't see how that in any way contradicts my position. Since I literally AM those neurons, if "they" make me think something that IS me making me think something.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@Pyrro314 , "Fate, Time and Language"~By David Foster Wallace. Buy a copy of that book and read it. You won't regret the purchase. You have the mind to understand the formulae and the concepts. This book will give you all you need for your argument concerning Free Will. Rock on!
Qntkka 1 month ago
@Qntkka thanks for the recommendation, it looks great.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 You are welcome! :)
Qntkka 1 month ago
People that don't believe in free will simply don't understand what free will actually means. It doesn't mean we have control over everything - it means we have freedom to make decisions based on things that are generally determined. In other words we can't will what we desire, but we can choose to act on that desire. That's where something like moral culpability comes into play. To be aware of a consequence, for instance, demonstrates the will.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 : well I'm pretty much saying "will power" means what you say, and "free will" as a term is misleading. I'm saying "free will" sounds like "control over everything" to people and that's probably what it ought to mean since people have this slave-wanting-freedom view of the term "free". I have both a reformed idea of "freedom" but also terms that avoid the complications, like "will power" rather than "free will". It changes the questions.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 Is it safe to say that you're a compatibilist then? It seems to me that compatibilism combines the better elements of both determinism and free will and correctly states that the two can co-exist if they're defined properly.
pawnstar3 3 weeks ago
@pawnstar3 : when I don't know something, always, I adopt a spectrum of ideas to try to cover the phenomenon. I am AT LEAST compatibilist. But as I'm not a determinist I see no reason to give up the idea that the future has multiple possibilities. So atm I am not a compatabilist, as I think there is still likely something to navigating into the future, it is not set. However, if it was proved we made no choices, I would at that point be a compatabilist because I live with will.
pyrrho314 3 weeks ago
Freedom might be motion without limits(the ability to go any and everywhere). But, as energy can't move anywhere outside of space. And the will is trapped within by the body, which itself can only survive in a particular type of environment. So i don't believe there is a true freedom. But, the word maybe useful in some circumstances perhaps. For there is an obvious difference between a slave and a free individual, in a social context.
enfomy 1 month ago
@enfomy But space might be boundless. So why not consider the energy as free? The term is probably a paradox. But we certainly are not free.
enfomy 1 month ago
@enfomy "free" and "unfree" are not good terms. They have served their purpose over ages of nothing better, but really they are incoherent. There are other words that work beter, such as "bounding conditions" and "potential energy" and "degrees of motion"
pyrrho314 1 month ago
I remember once reading about an experiment where they measured the timing of electrical stimuli in the brain vs the actual physical movement. The results seemed to indicated that the electrical signal in the brain fires ~.5 seconds after the action is performed. I don't remember what the source is as it was a long time ago. Just throwing that out there.
Illuzionz1111 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 aye, it soemthing like dynamic feedback systems. like a "W" at the center peak we sit ontop a positive feedback system, on eaither side so we do not go too far is a negative feedback system. One little spark on the positive feedback system can set us into motion one way or anouther. Yet, we will nto go too far before the negative feedback system starts pushing back.
masluxx 1 month ago
@masluxx the shape of our "W"s is our personality. What deturmines it's shape is partly genetics, and partly environment. The spark isthat might set us in motion is our will.
masluxx 1 month ago
hmmm, are you saying this "will" is not governed by previous events ? or is free from causation occasionally ? I'm not getting it ,sorry .
sausage4mash 1 month ago
@sausage4mash : that question is misleading I think... because there is no first cause of anything. There is energy flowing around. When the energy is in a battery, we say it's the batteries energy, but it's just in the battery in the moment.
Saying its "governed" by previous events is not something I would do, it is however produced by previous events, obviously, as is everything.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 I just think " will" is a focal point of subconscious processes ,kind of like behind this text is gates and switches ,binary code ect ect but what you see is the text .when you fight an urge ,what you perceive as an act of will is probably your mind resolving conflict and abstracting the battle and making a story of it (as minds do ) ,my guess is that the decision was already made before you knew it .
sausage4mash 1 month ago
@sausage4mash : I am that unconscious part. That's where most will is. But there is a reason that the battles play out (with lots of allegory and metaphor) in the conscious mind, and that's because the conscious will is a part of the system, part of the cognitive cycle, imo. Thus a lot of will comes down to the conscious minds ability to travel into the unconscious parts and prepare them for anticipated future conditions.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@cont : That our conscious influence is small per time unit is reason to look very closely. If only 1% of our decisions were affected by conscious will, that would be a very powerful number, as it is applied strategically and over time. Also, the unconscious will is not unreasonable, merely illogical, it can be made more reliable. If it is 99% of the will, then it's ability to affect physical events is probably way way less than .001%. Still, again, strategy and time can add up.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
I think we give ourselves too much credit sometimes. As Chomsky once said, we look at every other organ in our body as being machine-like except the brain. Why is that? The latest in Cognitive Neurology supports the idea that all of our actions are determined, much, in the same way you cannot help but have a certain reaction of chemicals, the brain cannot help but react in the way it was designed. Will changes as we change and Will certainly is not the cause of it's own change.
blackcrow6667 1 month ago
@blackcrow6667 yep,way I see it too
sausage4mash 1 month ago
@blackcrow6667 : "it"... everything is a system. Will is meant to affect behavior, and behavior (e.g. going to a particular environment) affects the will in return. This is a cycle, systems analysis... not a "thing", "me" and a "thing", "will".
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 I mean, there is room to define Will for sure as I left in a comment I think the other day or whatever in one of your videos. I just think if it's too broad of a definition, you might think a breeze blowing into leaf that moved it, was done intentionally so, I think Will and Intention sort of go together and it's hard to find the source of that intention in any dynamic system especially, with such a variety of influence or interference, depending how you might see it.
blackcrow6667 1 month ago
@blackcrow6667 : yes, that's an important point.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@blackcrow6667 : the question I think that is more focused is directly the issue of "is more than one future possible"... that is how it seems, and that is what anti-willosophers are saying is an illusion... that there really isn't more than one possible future. That is from whence they deduce the appearance that more than one possible future is an "illusion".
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@cont: Our experience implies that not only is there more than one possibility, but that we influence it, and we call that "will". Thus will is pretty much, by this encagement, synonymous with the feeling of influencing possibilities, they deny that feeling.
I don't understand what purpose that serves unless there is a will. Thus, I understand we wrongly feel in more control than we are, that as evolutionary advantages... but only if there is a real kernel will. it seems to me.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 I usually don't like to respond in a deterministic way as I did with that so, I'm a little hypocritical. I see variety in Nature and I expect possibility and at some level. I want to accept that anything can happen in any way and, electrons sort of do. At the same time though, everything cannot happen at once or nothing would be done; one path has to be made in some direction so if everything is that path or algorithm, maybe the bigbang started this as a single free thought
blackcrow6667 1 month ago
@blackcrow6667 Imagine, all of this, the manifestation of a single thought. Imagine, a single thought, the manifestation of a lifetime. I had this idea years ago and apparently I'm not the only one and though hard to make sense of rationally, it's an interesting way to view reality.
blackcrow6667 1 month ago
If the will is caused via a line of external causation that stems outside of the person, or prior to the person existing, then the "will" itself (though it exists) is forced.
It is no different than having a chip implanted in your brain in which a scientist is controlling without you knowing. The chip regulates the initial electro-chemical impulses in your brain to the extent that, from that point, the causality will lead to a specific action the scientist chooses.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 1 month ago
The brain "wills" such event, but such willing is caused by something external from it. Would we hold such a person responsible? If not, then you really need to address why a person whos "will" is caused from events before they ever existed is more "responsible".
These are the important questions to the debate...and why the "free" in "free will" is key.
C-ya,
'Trick
(END 2)
trick0171 1 month ago
@trick0171 : until you find a law of physics that explains subjective experience, you can't pretend we understand the forces of the universe sufficiently to say exactly how things are caused. If there can be a force of gravity, why can't there be some force that leads to will? As I've pointed out before, your assumption follow classical physics which is known to not hold. The search for certainty arrived at indeterminism.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314
Again, there is a force that leads to "will"...but that does not address the freedom part needed for responsibility.
In this video you talk about compatibilism...which has to do with determinism. Now you are talking about indeterminism ...maybe suggesting some libertarian view of free will? I would suggest that indeterminism is incompatible with any sort of willing, as acausal events are never willed events. No matter if classical or modern, free will is incoherent for all.
trick0171 1 month ago
@trick0171 : can you not see that I am not arguing it's "free"? I don't think anything is free, nor do I think that it makes sense to use "free" as a property for "things" which I say are "systems with behavior", and not "things with properties". Nothing is "free". Do you understand my argument that talking about will power (which I have a philosophy of) is different from talking about will -freedom- (which I think is an incoherent idea)?
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314
Then you agree that responsibility is incoherent as well? If not, then that is what I am addressing. How such "will" allows us to blame or consider ourself more deserving, etc. To hold one responsible?
trick0171 1 month ago
@trick0171 : the definition of responsibility that relieas on metaphysical things being judged good and bad is nonsense. However, that is not the only way to calculate responsibility. One version of the term is simply identifying how some energy came to fund some physical activity. I.e. the tiger was responsible for eating the child. It's silly to consider that metaphysical moral responsibility, cause it's what tigers do. But the tiger will still be put down, held responsible.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314
Agreed. Indeed! :)
The tiger should be put down (or if possible fixed) only to prevent further harms, not because it deserves to be put down for eating the child. Or a car will either be fixed or junked if it is too dangerous to drive. In that sense the faulty car is equally as "responsible" for an accident. This is indeed not the type of "responsibility" that the idea of free will imposes.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 1 month ago
I would suggest that this leads to equalization being the most rational response, as no one is more deserving that another for what they have, and no one is less deserving. Would you agree with this as well?
Thanks.
(END 2)
trick0171 1 month ago
@trick0171 : I am not advocating free will, and it's not the sort of idea that advocating "will power" imposes. In the latter case the question is if the energy came through the will or not, not a question of metaphysical responsibility-ness adhering to the actor.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314
I guess I'm not really sure what you are advocating with "will power". Lets assume it came "through the will"...what does that mean in terms of other philosophical questions. I can tell you what questions are important to the free will vs. no free will distinction, but what questions are important to the "will power" vs. "no will power" distinction?
trick0171 1 month ago
@trick0171 : one, to questions in cognitive science where the physics of how thinking works is a part of the study. Questions about a proper view toward punishment and rehabilitation, as you've raised. The question of how can we best use our will. Simply having an open question about how it works that acknowledges the potency of the answer. All these things require will power to be "put to use" by a conscious being.
Freedom needs to be understand as domain limited.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
determinism just means you can determine what happened and what will possible happen. I don't believe the future is set... maybe very well organised by some people and focused you in to their willed path... but not set. And you still have choices... and still have determination to do something with will power. I think free resides at the point in choosing... and will power in taking action. :-) You can choose something and not do it if you have no will power to back up your free will. Pawned. Ha
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
But you only have a certain amount of free will. Obviously you only have a certain amount of choices. :-)
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@TheaDragonSpirit ''But you only have a certain amount of free will.''
No, you don't have any free will. Zero. Nada. It's a logically incoherent concept.
DerivedEnergy 1 month ago
@DerivedEnergy - really... what you just said proves free will. No one forced you to make a choice. You read what I wrote disagreed. That shows free will, then you used will power to say what you said. by putting your thoughs in to words. If you had zero free will. Then why did you choose to reply... why bother replying why not go it's waste of time to reply since everything is set. You made a choice, then will power to write it out. Power of the free will choice you made then turned to action
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@TheaDragonSpirit ''No one forced you to make a choice. You read what I wrote disagreed. That shows free will...''
DNA spare me.
''then why did you choose to reply... why bother replying why not go it's waste of time to reply since everything is set.''
Because everything was set including my decision to respond to your comment. Just because we can safely dispense with free will it doesn't mean that all our actions are 'a waste of time'. Do you find the idea of no free will unsettling?
DerivedEnergy 1 month ago
@DerivedEnergy - oh so your dna made you make a choice. HAHA! SURE? What if I said? Purple fish and asked what is purple fish? Would your dna go what? No purple fish is wrong... Purple fish is right? Purple is wrong? No you choose to make a problem with what I said and then you choose to act on that. YOU CHOOSE! If you remove all DNA and be aware of your own thoughs and you are in control. YOU will realise YOU choose to talk at me of YOUR view. You choose. At that point YOU choose!
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@DerivedEnergy - No I don't find it unsettling I just know you have 1000's of chooses a day. And you choose to do them... and then will it, mostly subconsciously but when you become aware of your choices then you know you are making choices. So I am not bothered if I am a puppet to my DNA, if that makes me happy. But because I am aware just now by even replying that I choose to reply to you. And this is my choice. Willed in to action.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
@DerivedEnergy : it's logically incoherent to ARGUE with someone without will.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
I think you have both free will and will power... free will in some choices... and will power in being determined to do something. Say if your asked... do you want to stay here or go their... he has the free will to choose what to do... and the will power to actually do it. :-)
TheaDragonSpirit 1 month ago
If you're erasing the idea of personal primary causation, which I assume you would want to, and would need to do if you're going with Compatibalism, then even the small influence of the paddle would have to go to. Will as Power without either causative influence nor decision-making capacity doesn't sound like will at all.
conferencereport 1 month ago
@conferencereport : I'm not personally a compatibalist... I simply point out that the question of where the material energy is that is generating this phenomenon is pertinent if the will is free or not.
I don't really feel any need or expectation that the physics of will will "sound like will at all"... I mean, the explanation of sexual lust turns out to be the desire to make children, emotional feelings are non-sequitur in that way.
I just want to explain it.
pyrrho314 1 month ago
@pyrrho314 I thought you were interested in Will as a phenomenon, (as opposed to a 'thing'). I agree with you that an explanation of the 'physics' of will need not answer phenomenological questions but surely those are the questions that we're asking?
conferencereport 1 month ago
"you can" ...wrong
you is conceptual programs/reflexes... "they" are acquired through experience, and "they" will make you do what you do.
inmendham 1 month ago
@inmendham Awesome response.
sorensofos 1 month ago