Search the Community

The subject that currently interests me is omniscience, and the reason is that the common understanding of the word may be a contradiction. The word means "all knowledge", and is often referred as a pastiche of Bret Hart: knowing everything there is, everything there was and everything there will ever be. This implies determinism and a mechanistic universe that plays itself and abolishes the concepts of free will, morality, responsibility and such. That is because to hold someone responsible one would have to have the ability to do otherwise and in a mechanistic universe that simply is not the case. I instinctively recoil from this understanding of the word as it is in direct contradiction with how I, and everyone else, approaches life. It would also mean that God is the sort of monstrous puppet master who first creates beings He knows to mess up and then tortures them for shits and giggles while being the only one ever making a choice of any sort and thus directly and alone responsible for everything. You know, the sort of God atheists reject, and if it was real, Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter, would make absolutely no sense at all. So my question is: what if "all knowledge" cannot encompass the future, as it does not exist? Sure, one can calculate those things that depend on mechanisms, but not, say, what I shall eat tomorrow, for I have yet to decide that. Having all knowledge cannot mean having knowledge that is not there. This leaves open the possibility of having a free will, moral responsibility et al. It is also supported by our empirical experience of life. If the suggestion my question implies is correct, then God can be both omniscient and omnipotent without being omniderigent (ie. all-acting puppet master). And if so, the Bible would also make sense. PS. I do not subscribe to the usual attribution of God as omniscient, because the Bible strongly implies He isn't. He may well be voliscient (knows what he wants to know) and I'm perfectly ok with that. PPS. No wonder most atheists are so hell bent on determinism; their faux-moral rejection of God depends on it.

Physicalism (Materialism) Verifies Free Will Defining free will and physicalism The 'will' is the conscious experience of deciding and initiating human actions. Stefan Molyneux defines free will as the ability to compare an action to an ideal standard, but I will take a broader definition of free will which I would assume Stefan would agree with (without allowing for compatibilism): Free will is the ability to choose between possible actions independently of events that are external to a persons 'will'. That is, a person who decided to pursue action A at time X could have chosen action B under exactly the same external circumstances if he or she had 'willed' to do so. The opposite of free will is determinism which is: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the 'will'. Another definition of determinism is that events including the 'will' are determined by previously existing causes, however, this definition will not be used because I believe it does not necessarily touch the core of the issue which is whether our 'will' can act undetermined by external causes. If we were to assume this second definition, then determinism would be compatible with free will. Physicalism (also known as materialism) is the doctrine that the real world consists only of the physical world. The contradiction between free will and physicalism In this section, I will play devil's advocate and suggest a contradiction between free will and physicalism. Stefan argues that it is self-evident that free will exists, i.e., that our will causes human actions, as anyone arguing against this is causing their human action of 'arguing'. Not only that, but they are assuming that the other person is in a sense causing their 'listening' or 'acceptance' or 'non-acceptance' of their argument, which are also human actions. An issue with free will that probably troubles the minds of others in this community is that if free will is self-evident, it is true. If it is true, then determinism is false. If determinism is false then physicalism is false. It seems if we accept free will, we must abandon physicalism and adopt mind-body dualism, that is, that the 'will' is real but is independent of the physical world. It seems that the physical world is synonymous with objective reality because all that is objective is in some way measurable and that which is measurable is physical. However, mind-body dualism would mean that reality consists of more than objective reality, which means truth is subjective. However, the statement that 'truth is subjective' demonstrates that truth is objective, which is a contradiction. We are left in a bind. Either determinism or free will is true. Determinism must be false because free will is self-evident, and free will must be false because mind-body dualism is self-contradictory. This is a contradiction. Defending free will and physicalism I believe there is an error in the above reasoning. It does not follow that "if determinism is false then physicalism is false". In fact, I will now argue that if physicalism is true, then free will is true, and hence determinism is false. The 'will', self, or consciousness exists and this is self-evident (cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am). Therefore, physicalism would imply that the 'will' is physical. This conclusion is in line with physicalist theories of consciousness including Integrated Information Theory (IIT) which states that a system's consciousness is determined by its causal properties and is therefore an intrinsic, fundamental property of any physical system. If physicalism is true, then consciousness is a property of the causal links between neurons in a person's neural network. Then, consciousness is identical to the neural network. They are one of the same. If consciousness is the neural network, then our 'will' is also the neural network. Determinism would suggest that human actions are caused by this neural network but that human actions are caused by events external to our 'will': Determinism would suggest that the neural network itself is determined by external events such as non-conscious 'zombie' networks or neural networks connected to but external to the brain such as the peripheral nervous system. Therefore, if our brain determines actions and our brain is determined by external events, then our actions are determined by external events. However, it is not necessarily the case that external events determine our conscious neural network. According to IIT, the neural network is causally linked in such a way that the system is more akin to a positive feedback loop than a feed-forward system. That is, rather than external events causing consciousness causing action, external events play a role in consciousness (for example, I might say the reason I drank a glass of water is that I am thirsty) but that consciousness is caused by prior consciousness. Therefore, actions would be caused by consciousness, but consciousness would not be caused by external events. And because the 'will' is synonymous with our experience of consciousness, our 'will' has self-caused the action. It is not even that non-conscious processes cause our 'will'. It is that our 'will' and indeed our 'self' is composed in that integrated neural network that plays out causes and effects with itself. This is exactly what free will is, it is the freedom of the 'will' to act without being determined by external events, and because the ‘will’ is equal to the neural networks, the neural networks don’t count as external events. The best way to describe free will would be to say that it is an endogenous system. So we must conclude that physicalism actually demonstrates that free will is true and determinism is false. Looking at it from this perspective, it is completely, both ontologically and metaphysically accurate to say that 'I' convinced myself do to action A or action B. Conclusion The conception of free will I have suggested seems to dissolve much of the worries that people have about determinism. Some may worry that if determinism is true, then how can we ever be satisfied that we act rationally or are responsible for our actions? If external events determined that I would do something irrational or evil, how are we to expect any kind of integrity from ourselves. If we cannot expect integrity from ourselves, how can we say that we are really rational animals and how can we assign responsibility to ourselves and others? It seems that if determinism is true, then we are in a way doomed to a quasi-pathological life and we are fundamentally not in control of our own happiness. I believe this is the fundamental worry among free willers. The conception of free will I suggest solves this issue by suggesting that our self-integrity lies within the physical integrity (literally the integrated information) in our neural networks that retain a self-generating, endogenous system. If we look at free will with a physicalist lense, I believe we can preserve free will without compromising physicalism.

In FDR358 (Stef's wager) Stefan argued that it is better to believe in free will when lacking information to its existence. He calls this argument Stef’s wager. If you believe in free will but determinism is true then you were determined to believe in free will so you lost nothing. If you believe in determinism but free will is true then you lost your ability for personal responsibility which is worse. In this post, I will argue against the wager and utilise my argument against the wager to provide a case for, and to defend determinism. I will not cite all my paraphrases of Stefan for obvious reasons, but that is not a problem given that others may correct me if they believe I have misrepresented Stefan. Also, phrases with single quotation marks are quoting Stefan. Free will is defined as that which any person who possesses it could have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being uncaused by any physical effect. Decisions may be caused by something non-material like a soul. Or they may be self-caused, as Stefan has favoured. This definition of free will is the same definition Stefan has used. No sane determinist truly believes that beliefs cannot be changed or that choice does not exist. No sane determinist truly believes people cannot be rational or cannot debate. So naturally, a determinist will probably not find Stef’s wager convincing given that the determinist had probably considered the ability to choose when they adopted their belief in determinism. A determinist will not believe that beliefs cannot be influenced. Therefore, I argue that a better wager would be to show the pragmatic consequences of a determinist morality vs. a free will morality. This is more in line with the original Descartes wager. Descartes did not argue that if you believe in God but God does not exist then you cannot have lost anything because then morality does not exist anyway and so free will doesn't exist and you could not have changed your mind. Rather, he weighed up the consequences of the belief without changing epistemological postulates. He said if you believe in God but there is no God then you have not changed much in your life. If you believe in no God but there is a God then you will go to hell. Nowhere in this argument are one’s epistemological beliefs challenged. The wager is a pragmatic rather than a philosophical argument. Speaking in pragmatic terms, the wager favours neither position particularly strongly. There are many changes that a person makes if they are committed to determinism, for which it would be costly if they didn't make if determinism is true. Firstly, you stop evaluating people based on the decisions they make and start evaluating them on their behaviour. This makes life much simpler because you stop judging your own desires about people. You don't try to convince yourself someone is worth your time because they are trying their best to be a good person. You don't feel guilty for being selfish with regards to your relationships. According to a study, 44% of trait conscientiousness is heritable. This study supports the claim that virtue is predetermined. Secondly, you become compassionate towards others. You understand anger does not appeal to their rationality. Given that you evaluate them on their behaviour, you can infer that they are not worthy of your time if they don't change their behaviour. You may call them stubborn without any need to grant them free will. Thirdly, you have a richer understanding of human nature. How anger could change someone even if free will is true is difficult to imagine. A much simpler approach is to understand our emotions do not necessarily have any moral content. Anger may be a fight or flight mechanism. Shame may be a way of keeping the integrity of a tribe. Hatred depends on subjective values. There is not necessarily an unconscious 'true self' that 'knows everything' and then the extra component of free will. Rather, we can understand how people think by analysing their biology and experiences. According to free will, brain damage may affect a person’s emotions or unconscious motives, but it should not be able to affect a person’s virtue or moral worth, which should be solely determined by free will, and free will not being determined by physical effect. However, a study found that brain damage can casually make changes in the way that people reason which can causally change moral beliefs. Fourthly, you become compassionate towards yourself. A meta-analysis found a large effect size for the negative relationship between self-compassion and psychopathology, r = − 0.54 (95% CI = − 0.57 to − 0.51; Z = − 34.02; p < .0001). We can come to understand that when we say ‘sorry’, we don’t really mean we are worthy of shame, but rather that we understand that we should change how we behave in the future compared to the past. We also stop comparing ourselves to others. Under the dictum that reason equals virtue equals happiness, we may feel compelled to compare our levels of happiness to others, or to compare our virtue to that of others. This is not a good approach. We can accept that we are not all dealt the same hand, and there may as well be things that determine our virtue for which are difficult to control. It is not to say that we ought not to strive for virtue, but that virtue should not necessarily be the determinant of self-esteem. What is more appropriate is to compare oneself in the present to oneself in the past. Stefan has argued that determinism is paradoxical because it presupposes that a person is capable of choice, that is, changing their beliefs, while at the same time asserting that choice is impossible. Determinism is the opposite of free will. So, determinism is defined as not being able to have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being caused by physical effects. According to this definition, whether a person has actually made a choice remains untouched. So, the ability to choose and the fact that a person could not have chosen differently are compatible. Choice itself does not require free will. Choice is the ability to change behaviour in virtue of being rational. Rationality is simply conceptual ‘fidelity to reality’. This does not entail free will. Rationality distinguishes us from animals. Animals cannot think conceptually, and we can. Free will then is not required to distinguish human and animal thought. Stefan has argued that if a determinist attempts to debate because they believe others are 'inputs and outputs', then it explains why other people debate, but it would also mean the determinist is also an input-output machine. And therefore, a determinist has not chosen to debate with others and cannot attempt to debate in the first place which is a performative contradiction. To this argument I rebut. If free will does exist and we are watching two others debate, we can explain their behaviour without appealing to free will by labelling them as inputs and outputs much like philosophical zombies. A determinist simply takes that further to say that this is also a characteristic of the observer. We can still choose to debate even if it was determined. I am yet to have heard a philosophical argument from Stefan against determinism without him appealing to the argument of performative contradiction. If there is no contradiction with the belief of free will, we should look at the evidence and the simplest explanation. Stefan has acknowledged that determinism should be accepted only if it is non-contradictory given that it is simpler. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that determinism is simpler to free will for the following reasons. Firstly, everything else seems to be determined by all effects acting as also as all causes. Stefan has argued that we should not be surprised to find that the human mind possesses free will given that it is only the brain that possesses consciousness. However, I am not sure whether it's correct to assume that only the brain possesses consciousness. Consciousness cannot be objectively observed. If it were not for what we have observed in the physical human body and comparing it to our subjective experience, there would have been no way to know that consciousness resides in the brain. In fact, we still don't really know whether animals are conscious. In that regard, a rock could even be conscious in some manner, a position known as panpsychism. If a computer was capable of conceptual processing, it is likely that the computer would be conscious at a level similar to our own. Consciousness may have to do more with complexity and feedback loops than it has to do with the brain. I had a dream a while ago in which I saw consciousness and life itself arising from feedback loops, weird dream. Secondly, I do not know what it means to feel free. At least from my perspective, I see my thoughts as constant dialectics. I have said sorry enough times to my girlfriend where I really feel like I don't have much control as I thought I had. Do any men concur? Split-brain patients will often have opposing preferences in separate hemispheres. For example, one hemisphere may have atheistic leanings while the other has theistic leanings. Whether the person is actually theistic may have to do with what ever preference dominates consciousness as a unitary experience, but it does go to show the power of causality in the brain. Also, in my experience the biggest changes in my behaviour have arisen from changes in my environment rather than changes in my attitude. Thirdly, morality requires rationality but it does not require free will. Nowhere in the UPB framework is there a requirement for free will. If a person is rational, they will be moral by adopting universal preferences. Whether a person is rational may be predetermined. Fourthly, it is difficult to articulate what free will actually is. If you were asked to pick a random grass leaf from a field, it is difficult to claim you could have chosen differently. Every choice must depend on knowledge. Picking a grass leaf from a field is not an informative decision. You cannot for example say to have free will about whether to steer a ship east or west while in the middle of an unknown ocean at least without some scientific acuity. Likely, you will pick based solely upon gut feelings, or some kind of patterns of thinking or heuristics. Indeed, this is why neuroscientists can predict such behaviour before the person is aware of their decision. But even if a decision were to be more informative, like for example whether to watch this movie or that movie, there is nothing in your environment which informs you about what you ought to do. It is not intrinsically more rational to watch either movie. There is no ought from an is. Now, we can still say that morality exists. We can say it’s rational to be moral, for your behaviour to be universally preferable. However, choosing to watch a movie is not a moral decision. Subjective taste would largely determine which movie to watch, which arises from unconscious processes. If you are rational, unconscious motives will drive your specific behaviours. If you are irrational, unconscious motives will still drive your specific behaviours. Then, free will might not exist in the behavioural decisions per se, but rather in the choice about whether one acts rationally or irrationally regardless of what behaviour that entails. This is certainly what Ayn Rand believed. The point here is that free will how it is typically conceptualised as existing in every choice we make is unnecessary, and creates the problem of supposing some open system where we get inspiration or information from something that is neither in our environment or biology. To conclude, whether or not a person believes in determinism has significant effects on their life regardless of whether determinism is true. Determinism is not incompatible with the ability to choose. Therefore, it does not contradict how we act. Given that determinism is the simplest explanation, determinism is true. Determinism is defined as a lack of the ability have chosen differently. Free willers would argue the corollary to determinism is that choice does not exist. Conventionally then, determinism is also defined as the lack of choice. But I would argue that this belief is the idea of fatalism and not determinism. Given that morality exists and free will is an important concept in moral reasoning, I am in favour of compatibilism which states that free will does not contradict determinism if we define free will conventionally as the ability to choose and determinism as not having been able to have chosen differently. A person who is a compatibilist is still a determinist. I also wish not to do a disservice to free willers by abandoning the term known as free will used to describe the position of believing in the ability to have chosen differently, so I think it is appropriate to call that position free will while separating it from conventional free will.

I read the short story „Story of Your Life“ by Ted Chiang last week after watching Arrival and the story stayed with me for a while. The thread talks about small spoilers regarding the theme of the short story. In the short story the protagonist ends up remembering the future and thus is not free to alter it. However, the story concludes that she has free will in that she follows through with a choice she already knows she's will make in the future. By choosing not to alter the future, she is creating it and actively affirming it. While she makes the choice to not alter the future, she also doesn't really have any choice but to go through with what she knows will happen. The author assumes that knowledge of the future would change you in a way, so you wouldn't want to change it. So basically the author says that free will exists in an deterministic universe in the form of not affecting the outcome of future events. But if you are not free to affect the future, how free can your choice to not alter that future really be? Or am I wrong in assuming choice is required for free will to exists?

I enjoyed the show, but I have a critique about what Stef said at roughly 2:25:40. The caller said he believed in determinism and Stef said "I don't talk to robots." He was ridiculing the fact that determinism implies that events occur in a predetermined way. First, I'm disappointed that he would suspend his integrity (by being cheeky and short) when faced with the subject of determinism -- it leads me to believe that he is emotionally opposed to it. Second, I've heard other conversations he's had with callers and I don't think they've done determinism justice or they have been too nervous and inexperienced in debating to properly push back. Thoughts?

DISCLAIMER: I couldn't talk about existence without hitting on the topic of determinism so, well my hands were tied. Any gap I left in the argument would get filled by either determinism or free will (individualism) so I had to tackle them. It's why I've put this disclaimer here to begin with and I'd hate to have any discussion removed for, well, a bias. If my ideas here are truly worth exploring then they're going to be explored elsewhere. I'd prefer if it began here though. If anything I've written were to be read by the FDR team this would be it if only because I haven't yet jotted down how self-sacrifice doesn't and has never existed in reality. This is the first time I've ever written any of this down and the first for many of these arguments too. I don't want it refuted, I want it refined. Hopefully there's enough truth in it to warrant that. If anything, holding to this position and arguing for it should make anyone on either side of the debate leave you alone. They'll never again ask you what reality is. They'll never again ask you what a concept is. They'll never again ask you what the difference is and they'll never again ask your opinion on it. FORWARD (yeah I put a forward in): This was something else. I don't know if I'm nuts or what but this should challenge, or entertain, people on any side of this question. I tied it into philosophy itself. I also used the term individualism as the opposite of determinism. It's not really but it better relates my point if I even have one. I just posted this through a sock puppet account under Stef's 'What is Existence?' video which I still have yet to watch. It's my understanding that the topic of determinism is a no-no, at least I think it still is. Believe me I didn't want to go there but as it turns out I may have, and I'll leave it up to you, added a little something special to whatever debate is left. Suffice to say when it comes to free will and determinism, both are correct, both are wrong, people who hold either view have never truly spoken to each other and, before you even ask, no I'm not advocating for agnosticism at all. In fact I advocate for both determinism and individualism operating at the same time and being mutually compatible. Bonkers right? I didn't think that's what was going to happen but it did. First on the point of requiring a creator, this is a product of humans having evolved with their recognition of cause and effect tied into their ability to recognize individuals and their capacity for thought and intention. This is paramount to understanding everything I'm about to talk about and it's informed quite a lot of my perception of the universe. I suggest you spend a lot of time thinking about that. So in other words, when we evolved the ability to recognize another person we simultaneously evolved the ability to recognize what effects they caused. This makes sense considering how we, even today, understand what another human being is by this very standard. We have words for their ability to both create and understand cause and effect like intention, agency, motivation, and so on. What went wrong in all this is that humans, especially primitive ones, saw intention in all effects in the natural world too. The wind was caused by another being because humans only understood effects as being caused by other beings. This belief that a being is causing all the effects in the natural world is none other than the belief in a god. This is why even atheists can claim a feeling that there is a being that controls and manipulates the natural world. It's a byproduct of our understanding of cause and effect. Taking this one step further, I doubt there is any other way to evolve an understanding of cause and effect given that without the concept of an individual, another person or being, every effect is caused by the universe and nothing else. There would be no difference between cause and effect. Humans and other animals would be perceived as no different than rocks or air or space. It would be a 100% deterministic existence. Second on the point of the mathematical code (physics) that appears to operate consistently through the universe, this is total speculation on my part but it makes sense to me: the universe can and only does work one way isn't a demonstration that it was coded specifically for a purpose or by another being. As the fallible humans that we are we can make mistakes. We are able to create models without full knowledge and understanding of the universe and thus errors are a part of every model we can create. Errors aren't a part of the universe however. They are a creation, a byproduct, of our individuality. Can a rock have an error? No. Can I add 2+2, get 5, and have that be an error? In my own mind yes, but the act of writing the numbers down with a pencil, the mechanical motion of my arm, the movement of electrons in my brain, the physical structure of every atom involved, all of these didn't falter even a bit. The universe doesn't have errors. See it's not a code. It's not, "The universe is a code," but rather, "The universe is is." In even the limited way we can understand the meaning of the word 'is' that's the universe. The universe is 'is'. Error only exists in concepts. Third on the point of why we have something rather than nothing, well the universe is binary...to us. What is the significance of a binary universe? Well it's both very simple and very perplexing. Take time now and try to define either existence or non-existence without the use of the other. Done? You cannot. They require each other to exist and in that they aren't really any different. I mean consider the statement, "Non-existence exists." It makes your brain explode. So on the point of the universe being binary, binary code, existence is 1 and non-existence is 0. Everything operates on binary because binary is how existence...exists. Is there any energy in [X] position or not? 1 or 0? Is there less energy in [Y] position or not? 1 or 0? The question isn't, "Why do we have something rather than nothing?" They require each other. What is existence? It's not non-existence. What is non-existence? It's not existence. Existence itself is the universe. Let's use the word universe this time: what is non-existence? Not the universe. Even in describing what non-existence is we require an entire universe to do so. So what it all comes down to is that the concept that we can have one without the other is a problem in our reasoning and nothing more. Again it's a byproduct of our ability to recognize and understand individuality. Without this we wouldn't see existence and non-existence as separate things. They would be the same. Of course everything would be the same as everything else and we'd just be deterministic. Cause and effect would be the same too. We'd be no different than rocks. Now, the true Big Question about the universe isn't why it exists but how a perfect system of reality, a singular...thing, was able to evolve the concept of individuality at all. In the entirety of the universe there was never a single individual or even the concept of it...until there was. How did a universe create a creature that then created the concept of a universe not existing which is so impossible the universe could not and will not ever create it? Even individuality comes with it the concept of one being separate from the universe. That should have been impossible. Hell, the first time humans divided by zero was a milestone in things the universe should never have created...yet did. If you found any of those questions interesting you missed my point entirely. Tee hee! Again, humans see the universe as binary. It's not really, but that's how we can understand it. Those questions I just asked were preying on our propensity to do this. Concept of the individual? Can't exist without it's opposite. The concept of an error? Same thing. Existence and non-existence require each other. To me the concept of the individual is as paradoxical as the concept of determinism. I contend that they, like existence and non-existence, require each other to exist. In fact, break down individuality and determinism to their most basic parts and you're just dealing with existence and non-existence all over again with regard to free will. The arguments for both self detonate and all either side is doing is arguing exclusively for one as if they are mutually exclusive. Consider these examples: I believe I am an individual. The universe is deterministic. The universe created the concept of individualism. Determinism created individualism. I believe I am predetermined. The universe is individualistic. I created the concept of determinism. Individualism created determinism. What I think all of this comes down to is that there is no example of an opposite in the entire universe since all opposites are a question of existence vs non-existence. What is the opposite of [X] position? It's not [every other position in the universe] or no position. What is the opposite of heat? It's not cold because it's on a spectrum. What is the opposite of energy? Not energy, which is just non-existence. Even our categorization of the universe, our attributing of INDIVIDUALITY to different mechanics of it, is wrong. Is there a difference between a particle and a wave? No. Matter and energy? No. THIS atom and THAT atom. No. When you're dealing with what the universe is outside of the concepts humans use to understand it (where the concept of objectivity is able to exist) it's just the universe. It's a singular '1'. There is no standard to distinguish what a particle is versus what a wave is. What the position of Jupiter is to the position of our Sun. The ability for humans to successfully interpret what reality is is what objectivity itself is. A successful interpretation is objective truth. It's not reality itself, it's just a small observable chunk of reality fed through the system of logic and reason producing a result that is able to appeal to others' logic and reason. The concept of objectivity itself can't be applied to the universe, just our understanding of it: 'Humans, possessed of their ability to conceptualize individuality, are able to develop an objective standard for their interpretation of a deterministic universe.' Weird I know, but I think that's what's going on. Both sides of the argument between individualism and determinism are trying to apply objectivity to the universe. You can't do it. All you can do is apply objectivity to concepts of the universe and, indeed, that is what both sides are doing. One side argues that the ability to think, reason, choose, [insert Stef's argument here], proves that individuality exists. The other argues that the concept of an individual is just that, a concept, and thus our actions in reality are at the mercy of cause and effect since we are no more than atoms at the whim of physics. Both are correct. What the person arguing for individuality is actually arguing for is that, 'our ability to successfully interpret the universe is objectivity itself.' He's right. What the person arguing for determinism is actually arguing for is that, 'reality isn't subject to or will change according to our ability to interpret it'. He's right. What either fail to grasp is that the only way to understand and interact with each other and the universe, to interact with whatever true reality is, is through concepts and thus objectivity is entirely exclusive to an interpretation of reality. It boggles the mind yet only an interpretation can be objective whether that interpretation is individualism or determinism or whatever. In other words, a thought can be true but not the truth of the thought. I can state in truth that I like ice cream but I cannot prove it in reality. The thought exists, yet the truth of it is unknowable. I require concepts like logic and reason to do so. As do you, not to mention a myriad of assumptions. Attempting to apply truth to reality is no different at all than asking questions like, 'What is the meaning of the universe?' or more trivially, 'What does it mean for the universe that I like ice cream?' Actual reality cannot be objective or true or any of those things. There is no meaning. It's just an 'is' as the Buddhists would put it. I understand that this sounds like an appeal to agnosticism but far from it. In fact agnosticism, instead of trying to apply objectivity to reality as individualists and determinists do, apply the concept of subjectivity to the universe. This takes form in the twin camps of those who claim nothing can be known of the universe at all and those who claim that our thoughts alone are enough to shape reality itself (infinite multiple universes). So to sum that up: 'Objectivity isn't a measure of the truth of reality but rather a measure of the adherence to themethod we use to interpret the truth of reality.' Objectivity is like the code used to compress a JPEG. Yes you lose information in the compression. Yes the image is of lower quality than the original. Yes the result is certainly not the original and cannot be reverse-engineered into the original. Yet so long as the coderan perfectly it was objective. A solid method, in fact the method, is all that has ever mattered in determining truth. We call this reason and logic and have turned it into the twin disciplines of science and philosophy. It is the only method for determining truth because running the code itself is objectivity. It doesn't matter what you believe but rather how you believe and I'm not just saying that to be quaint. I 100% mean it. In fact I dare say Stef, at some level, already knows this: 'Reason equals virtue equals happiness.' What someone believes is entirely a product of how they believe thus arguing over theproduct of a faulty method is entirely pointless. If you've ever watched a debate or heard the sentiment, 'You argue for the audience not your opponent,' you're already aware of this. You cannot change a person's conclusion without first changing their method. This is why, perhaps subconsciously, Stef always delves into why someone believes what they believe or asks about what they ask about. In this way he's the most effective debater on the planet (Disagree? Step up!) and perhaps the first to finally marry the remainder of the 'scientific' method (just the method really) to philosophy. It's not enough for Stef to prove that what someone believes is incorrect. He finishes the job and seeks to prove the all important WHY. Not why they are wrong but why they believe falsehoods. Philosophy you see doesn't exist to eradicate untruth. It does only as a consequence of it's actual goal that has been lost up until quite recently. Neither does it exist to pursue truth as that is for logic and reason itself. Did you never wonder, given their adherence to logic and reason, what the difference was between philosophy and science? It's described as 'thin' but it's not. The difference is that science uses logic and reason, operates the objectivity code, in the interpretation of reality. Philosophy uses logic and reason, operates the objectivity code, on itself. Why? ERRORS. God knows there are errors. If everyone's code was running properly we wouldn't need philosophy at all. So much truth is elementary and the rest can be left to science. No, what philosophy was meant to do, and what Stef does when he delves into why people believe as they do, is to eradicate false (not even faulty because there is only one) methods. Stef and others like him are debugging people. This is why, besides projection, people will label 'Stef's philosophy' (as if it's his and not just logic and reason) as a cult. It's because they recognize that it's not just peoples' beliefs that change but their entire methodology. However, given that such people aren't introspective (all introspective means is one's ability to recognize their own methodology including assumptions) they see another's intent in the change of the other person. They see Stef's intent - his 'brainwashing' - instead of a change in the method of the other person. Gee, now where do we have an example of people, especially the religious, attributing an effect to another's intent? That pesky byproduct of the recognition of individuality. You think religion is old? You have no idea. Hey quick question, "What's a false methodology called?" Answer: "Culture." This is why the religious can get along despite their texts commanding unbelievers be slain and even hate atheists more than anyone despite no atheist text or intention of harming the religious on their part. It's why statists at each others throats and blaming the worlds ills on each other stand in unison against anarchists. It's the method of belief that unites them. They can communicate an interpretation of reality they both understand and thus better identify with each other. When we speak to them we speak another language and, in fact, they find it threatening no matter what. Why? Philosophy is designed to correct and destroy these false methods. Philosophy is an attack on everything you believe falsely. Hell, is it any wonder we have the term 'mind virus?' That would make philosophy the anti-virus software of humanity. Last thought: consider that if our centers of logic and reason functioned on a level that could understand the entirety of the universe (which I believe would be impossible) the knowledge that '1=/=0' is sufficient enough to facilitate the entire understanding of said universe. In fact, that's what every single conceptual model comes down to. That's all math is. Everything we know is a product of that single equation and, fancy that, you need one in order to prove the other. Sound familiar? Existence =/= Non-existence. As for the original question, 'What is Existence?' Well I've defined existence as 'is' itself. What is is? Can you even ask that question? Is is... Can you even answer that question? I contend that you cannot. It's a paradox in the same realm as defining existence and non-existence without reference to each other. In fact it's the same thing. We just don't have a word for the opposite of 'is'. I suppose 'non-is' is the best we've got which should help demonstrate how this use of opposites is, again, strictly bound to concepts and not to reality. So to number all the super controversial things I've said: 1) The ability to perceive and understand cause and effect is a byproduct or is a necessary component of individuality. 2) God is the attribution of personal intention to cause and effect which came as a consequence of evolved individuality. 3) Attributing intention to cause and effect is necessary in order to evolve individuality. 4) The universe does not have errors. 5) Errors are strictly conceptual. 6) The universe is interpreted as binary by humans. 7) Existence and it's opposite, non-existence, cannot be defined without the use of the other. 8) The inability to conceptualize existence apart from non-existence by humans is why we interpret the universe as binary. 9) Individualism and determinism are paradoxical beliefs. 10) Individualism and determinism require each other to exist. 11) The reason the argument persists is that both sides assume they are mutually exclusive. 12) The are no opposites in the universe; only in concepts. 13) Attributing individuality to the mechanics of the universe is incorrect. None of it is separate. 14) Objectivity is strictly conceptual and cannot be applied to the universe 15) Objectivity is the successful use of the ability of humans to utilize the method of logic and reason to interpret reality. Objectivity describes the use of this method, not reality itself. 16) Humans, possessed of their ability to conceptualize individuality, are able to develop an objective standard for their interpretation of a deterministic universe. 17) Both sides of the determinism argument are trying to apply objectivity to the universe. 18) Objectivity cannot be applied to the universe; only the use of concepts to interpret the universe can be objective. 19) What the person arguing for individuality is actually arguing for is that, 'our ability to successfully interpret the universe is objectivity itself.' 20) What the person arguing for determinism is actually arguing for is that, 'reality isn't subject to or will change according to our ability to interpret it'. 21) Individualism and determinism is the application of objectivity to reality. 22) Agnosticism is the application of subjectivity to reality. 23) There is only a singular method to determining truth. 24) The singular method to determining truth is objectivity itself and when used properly it is said to be objective. 25) Reason equals virtue equals happiness is a rephrasing of item 24. 26) What is believed is a product of how one believes. 27) Arguing against the conclusion from one's methodology for belief does not change their conclusion. 28) Changing one's methodology for belief is the only way to change one's conclusions. 29) Stef explores why people believe what they believe in order to change their method. Their conclusion changes merely as a consequence. 30) Philosophy uses logic and reason not as an interpretation of reality but as an interpretation of itself in order to find and correct errors in the method. 31) People label philosophy itself as belonging to Stef and the change in people's methodology as brainwashing by Stef for the same reason they attribute the intention of a being to cause and effect. 32) Introspection is the ability to recognize and analyze one's own methodology for determining truth including one's assumptions. 33) Culture is a false methodology. 34) Methodology, objective or otherwise, is what people identify in others as camaraderie or as threats. This is why the religious identify with each other despite their incompatibility. The ability to be religious is the foundation to their beliefs not the belief itself. 35) Objective methodology is virtue. 36) Belief is irrelevant compared to method. Everyone identifies and interacts according to their methods and not their beliefs. 37) All conceptual models rest on the axiom that 1=/=0 thus existence does not equal non-existence is just another way of communicating 1=/=0. 38) The universe and existence are merely other terms for the word 'is'. 39) The word 'is' cannot be properly defined as a concept as it is the foundational axiom of all conceptual models and conception itself. 40) ' IS ' = [1=/=0] If anything this should have provided some zany reading while on the toilet. That's where I do most of my reading anyway. It's the best I'm going to hope for and hey, if I'm so off my rocker as to not even be correct enough to be wrong, well I'm just living up to my name.

Imagine this scenario: You watch a live tennis match on your tv and then use your time machine to travel in time to the beginning of the tennis match. How will it play out? Will it be completely identical, because you didn't change anything simply by traveling back in time to observe it, or will people make different decisions because they have free will? I would say it would be the same. The players are in identical circumstances in both cases, so it's logical to assume they will make the same decisions they made the first time, unless their decisions were made randomly. Doesn't this imply people are a deterministic system, if equal entry parameters mean equal results?

Stefan, you make the argument for Free Choice aren't you making the argument against Science as it uses Determinism as one of its assumptions? It is interesting to me that a number psychological scientists (yes, they do exist) are attracted to the Free Choice/Determinism debate. One example is Carl Rogers and you can learn more about that in his book Becoming A Person. If you don't believe, logically, in freedom of choice then you can't believe in morality, can you, because your actions are determined, no matter what one tries to do to change? Is not the basic premise of Science, Determinism? It also interesting to me that Stefan is very interested in conscience/unconsciousness science of the mind and not the behaviorist type of psychological science. For one that is so into proving his philosophical precepts via very basic and limited premises or assumptions and then lets his assumptions when it comes to psychological science to be so less concrete.