Schopenhauer, the ultimate red pill?

[Kevin Beal]

Positive claims like "people do choose what they desire" is what requires the extraordinary positive evidence that you so boldly asked for

I addressed the positive claims thing in post #132, and the not choosing desires thing in post #4.

 

If that doesn't give you any pause, implying that I've blown right past these things, and finding out that I addressed them directly, as soon as they were brought up, then don't bother responding.

 

People keep trying to say that I haven't addressed something, and when I point out that I have, it's completely meaningless to them. If me pointing out that I have addressed something doesn't change anything for you, then you don't get to say that not addressing things is a problem. That's called "having no null hypothesis," which means: there's no winning with you. You are a fraud if you do that.

[Tundra]

 

 

I addressed the positive claims thing in post #132, and the not choosing desires thing in post #4.

 

If that doesn't give you any pause, implying that I've blown right past these things, and finding out that I addressed them directly, as soon as they were brought up, then don't bother responding.

 

People keep trying to say that I haven't addressed something, and when I point out that I have, it's completely meaningless to them. If me pointing out that I have addressed something doesn't change anything for you, then you don't get to say that not addressing things is a problem. That's called "having no null hypothesis," which means: there's no winning with you. You are a fraud if you do that.

You say you've rebutted something, but wont say where, insist I haven't read the thread (it's 5 pages, I have, but I cannot recall every post on every page) and I wasn't about to re-read them all. I asked you where you allegedly rebutted my argument and you wont tell me, you finally do now, and then act as though I simply can never be pleased, you as though you plainly presented me your rebuttal and I ignored it, but that is simply not the case and you know it. 



 

 

You have a degree of control over what you desire insofar as you develop multiple competing desires. You may want to eat ice cream all day, but you want to live a healthy life even more. With increased knowledge, you can prioritize your time and energy. This is part of healthy normal maturation. You are responsible for gaining knowledge and prioritizing your desires in a rational way.

 

If someone were completely a slave to their immediate desires or instincts, then clearly that is not a conception of free will which could make sense. Free will, in order to be something recognizable, would have to involve rational decision making, deferring gratification, comparing actions to rational standards and resistance to unhealthy, immoral or otherwise irrational desires.

Saying that you have multiple desires doesn't prove that you choose your desires. Simply because you want an apple, and you want an orange, doesn't mean that you chose either desire. You desire the orange more than the apple, and you're at the store and they cost a dollar and you only have $1 you decide to buy the orange. You've read Rothbard or Mises most likely, so you know how scales of preferences work. Just because you decide to try to obtain a higher order desire doesn't mean that you are making a choice.

Additionally, you've claimed my argument's conclusions don't follow from the premises. But you haven't explained how at all.

 

 

 

You can choose those things. You don't have total control but you have a little. 

 

Changing your beliefs or desires does not mean having total control over them. 

 

Can you give a single example of a time in which you choose to belief something you believed was false before. This isn't to say that someone changed your mind, that someone presented you with new evidence, or an argument, or some new info that made you change your mind. 

Can you give a single example of a time in which you choose your desires? For example if you cookies and hate broccoli and you wake up some day and desire broccoli rather than cookies, and you did so because you desire to be more healthy. This isn't choosing your desires. You desired health more than you desired cookies.    An example where you decide to do something in contrast to a lower order desire in order to try to obtain a higher order desire does not demonstrate choice in desires.

 

 

 

PS: there was another one of my posts that must have been swallowed by the FDR board, It said it required admin approval, and then it never appeared. 
 

[Kevin Beal]

Just because you decide to try to obtain a higher order desire doesn't mean that you are making a choice.

You're right. That's just my experience. It could be an illusion, to be sure. As far as a mechanism goes, it's too high a level of description to be too useful. My goal is primarily to point to the experience.

 

The Determinist must show that this is an illusion before I can saying anything about it not being an illusion. The OP said that desires are not chosen in one respect, and implied that they are thus chosen in no respect. I showed that more work was necessary to demonstrate this claim.

 

The actual "how" of free will is beyond me. I have very little idea of how consciousness works. I fully admit this.

 

As for your requests, I don't care. I don't like you. You are mean spirited, and without any apparent redeeming qualities. Honestly, I barely read any of your posts. If you are spending a lot of time on it for my benefit, I'd recommend you stopped, because it'll continue to be mostly ignored.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Can you give a single example of a time in which you choose to belief something you believed was false before. This isn't to say that someone changed your mind, that someone presented you with new evidence, or an argument, or some new info that made you change your mind. 

Can you give a single example of a time in which you choose your desires? For example if you cookies and hate broccoli and you wake up some day and desire broccoli rather than cookies, and you did so because you desire to be more healthy. This isn't choosing your desires. You desired health more than you desired cookies.    An example where you decide to do something in contrast to a lower order desire in order to try to obtain a higher order desire does not demonstrate choice in desires.

 

 

 

PS: there was another one of my posts that must have been swallowed by the FDR board, It said it required admin approval, and then it never appeared. 

 

 

Choosing to believe something you didn't believe before is a common determinist straw-man. It does not follow that having some control over ones action/ choices, etc means you have total control or can do contradictory things. You can't just choose to believe something to know to be false. 

The choosing desires argument is even sillier. I can't necessarily instantly choose to like broccoli more then cookies but I can choose to eat the broccoli despite desiring the cookie. As it happens I actually often DO like broccoli more than cookies these days because I made choices over time. So I did to some extent choose my desires there. You can say it's just because of a desire to be healthy and posit a seemingly never ending regress of desires. But that doesn't work either because part of my desire to be healthy is chosen as well. The fact we can curb our desires or indulge them proves we have some choice about them and about which desires we cultivate. 

 

I don't know what a lower order desire is. I assume you mean a less powerful desire. But that often fluctuates. Simply by thinking we can change the strength of our desires or even get rid of them. We often have multiple strong desires at once but have to choose based on standards other than the feeling of desire. 

[Kevin Beal]

We often have multiple strong desires at once but have to choose based on standards other than the feeling of desire. 

Brace yourself for the "unchosen X of the gaps" strategy. Insert a desire in there somewhere, as if everything mental was desire.

 

Whatever it is, something unchosen must be shoved into the gap, because we've already established the premise that mental states are unchosen. If they're unchosen then they're unchosen, as the Determinist says, unaware of the circular logic.

[neeeel]

Brace yourself for the "unchosen X of the gaps" strategy. Insert a desire in there somewhere, as if everything mental was desire.

 

Whatever it is, something unchosen must be shoved into the gap, because we've already established the premise that mental states are unchosen. If they're unchosen then they're unchosen, as the Determinist says, unaware of the circular logic.

Whereas the "they are chosen therefore they are chosen" is not at all circular

[labmath2]

Determinists believe they can change someones mind, because we know that ARGUMENTS are a type of stimuli.

 

This notion that determinism means nothing changes is a strawman.

 

And there is no change in outcome? is there some area of philosophy that FDR is in unanimity about? Because if not, then it seems like a mighty high bar to set, for this one topic, to expect everyone to agree.

There are two main main concerns.

 

1. People cannot change their minds. Every step of the way you have been arguing as if Kevin could change his own mind. What you should actually believe is that Kevin's mind could be changed and you should be looking for the right combination of phrases to do just that. Unless you know how to change another person's mind, particularly Kevin's, you are just typing symbols from a near infinite symbol combination and hoping to hit the right one that will change his mind. That is not a very rational action.

 

2. For the argument to be meaningful at least one of you has to have intentionality. See chinese room thought experiment for full argument. The basic idea is that if you are merely am entity that accepts inputs and produce outputs based on a set of predetermined rules, then there is no "meaning" in between input and output, its just all gears turning. There is no person with which the conversation is happening, its just a complex algorithm. Its analogous to two billiard balls colliding.

 

How do you answer both those charges?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Whereas the "they are chosen therefore they are chosen" is not at all circular

 

Not really because the free willer doesn't claim all is chosen. The determinist does claim all is not chosen. 

[Will Torbald]

I addressed the positive claims thing in post #132, and the not choosing desires thing in post #4.

 

If that doesn't give you any pause, implying that I've blown right past these things, and finding out that I addressed them directly, as soon as they were brought up, then don't bother responding.

 

People keep trying to say that I haven't addressed something, and when I point out that I have, it's completely meaningless to them. If me pointing out that I have addressed something doesn't change anything for you, then you don't get to say that not addressing things is a problem. That's called "having no null hypothesis," which means: there's no winning with you. You are a fraud if you do that.

I apreciate the reply, but the part you ignored is the best part. If you claim that you can choose between pre existing desires you omit the part where one can ask where did those desires come from. Since those competing desires are not equal, one will win over the other by weight of needs, resources, and availability.

 

What you cut from my post is how a desire is generated. I proposed a scenario where their new desires are biologically non chosen. I also proposed a different method through free will in which someone without a desire can create one on purpose. Verily ignored by everyone else in later posts, too. If you can't create desires, where's the will?

 

As far as free will goes, my idea is that pre existing desires can be resisted with enough training and maturity in order to reach a point where a desire is not a command, but only a suggestion. If that point of self knowledge is not reached, then man is only a puppet of its instincts.

[Kevin Beal]

No pause. Okay, then you're a fraud.

 

You cannot say that not addressing things is a problem.

 

There is too much packed into what people say. I cannot address everything. People can go without addressing some argument I made. That's fine. The problem is holding me to a higher standard than people hold themselves, especially given how generous I've been already. I have other things I could do with my time.

[shirgall]

I have other things I could do with my time.

 

Wait. We have a choice on how to spend our time?

[Kevin Beal]

Wait. We have a choice on how to spend our time?

Not really. I was predestined to say that.

 

It's not like I'm wrong either, because they are just words. There's no rational chooser in my mind which chooses what I say. It's fundamentally meaningless, just like this post I'm typing right now.

[shirgall]

Not really. I was predestined to say that.

 

It's not like I'm wrong either, because they are just words. There's no rational chooser in my mind which chooses what I say. It's fundamentally meaningless, just like this post I'm typing right now.

 

Fate accomplished!

[Tundra]

You're right. That's just my experience. It could be an illusion, to be sure. As far as a mechanism goes, it's too high a level of description to be too useful. My goal is primarily to point to the experience.

 

The Determinist must show that this is an illusion before I can saying anything about it not being an illusion. The OP said that desires are not chosen in one respect, and implied that they are thus chosen in no respect. I showed that more work was necessary to demonstrate this claim.

 

The actual "how" of free will is beyond me. I have very little idea of how consciousness works. I fully admit this.

 

As for your requests, I don't care. I don't like you. You are mean spirited, and without any apparent redeeming qualities. Honestly, I barely read any of your posts. If you are spending a lot of time on it for my benefit, I'd recommend you stopped, because it'll continue to be mostly ignored.

I did give you an argument that suggests that choice is an illusion, you dismissed it by saying that the conclusion doesnt follow (and still, have yet to explain how the conclusion doesn't follow) as for the desires being chosen aspect, I already rebutted your 'rebuttal'. By simply pointing out that claiming correctly that we have multiple desires does not show in any way that we choose our desires. 

 

Also who knew "I dont like you!" was an argument. Because it seems firmly rooted in the "not an argument" territory. Also trust me, I dont do ANYTHING for YOUR benefit, just mine. I'm really really selfish like that. See I know this is going to come as a shock, but the truth is a useful tool, the better you understand the world the better you are able to move through it to get what you want. If I am wrong about something, I want someone to tell me. How better to learn that I am wrong about something then to engage in arguments? Of course you have utterly failed to demonstrate that I am wrong about anything on any front. You are too busy grandstanding, sitting on your high horse and acting like I am beneath you. 

 

 

 

Choosing to believe something you didn't believe before is a common determinist straw-man. It does not follow that having some control over ones action/ choices, etc means you have total control or can do contradictory things. You can't just choose to believe something to know to be false. 

The choosing desires argument is even sillier. I can't necessarily instantly choose to like broccoli more then cookies but I can choose to eat the broccoli despite desiring the cookie. As it happens I actually often DO like broccoli more than cookies these days because I made choices over time. So I did to some extent choose my desires there. You can say it's just because of a desire to be healthy and posit a seemingly never ending regress of desires. But that doesn't work either because part of my desire to be healthy is chosen as well. The fact we can curb our desires or indulge them proves we have some choice about them and about which desires we cultivate. 

 

I don't know what a lower order desire is. I assume you mean a less powerful desire. But that often fluctuates. Simply by thinking we can change the strength of our desires or even get rid of them. We often have multiple strong desires at once but have to choose based on standards other than the feeling of desire. 

 

Yes your desires change over time, as a result of your choice? I doubt it. 

 

And just because you decide to eat broccoli rather than a cookie, doesn't mean you are choosing to go against your desires. Why did you eat the broccoli, because you know it is healthier for you and you desire to be healthy?     Also this isn't a strawman at all, if you refer to my argument in post #150 you will see how if you are unable to choose your desires, and you are unable to choose your beliefs, then you are unable to choose your actions. If you cannot choose your actions, then where is the free will?

 

I asked for a single example in which you choose your desires, or your beliefs, and you cannot give them to me except examples in which you decided to go against 1 desire in the name of a second stronger desire (EG: deciding to eat healthy food) 

 

And if we choose on standards other than desire, what standards are those? If you mean for example that we may desire to steal and we refrain because we choose our action on a standard of morality rather than raw desire, can it not be said that you decided to act morally because you DESIRED to be moral? Morality doesn't compel you to act morally. What standard could we possibly decided on other than desire. Any standard we decide on merely betrays the fact that we desire to be in line with that standard!

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Yes your desires change over time, as a result of your choice? I doubt it. 

And just because you decide to eat broccoli rather than a cookie, doesn't mean you are choosing to go against your desires. Why did you eat the broccoli, because you know it is healthier for you and you desire to be healthy?     Also this isn't a strawman at all, if you refer to my argument in post #150 you will see how if you are unable to choose your desires, and you are unable to choose your beliefs, then you are unable to choose your actions. If you cannot choose your actions, then where is the free will?

 

I asked for a single example in which you choose your desires, or your beliefs, and you cannot give them to me except examples in which you decided to go against 1 desire in the name of a second stronger desire (EG: deciding to eat healthy food) 

 

And if we choose on standards other than desire, what standards are those? If you mean for example that we may desire to steal and we refrain because we choose our action on a standard of morality rather than raw desire, can it not be said that you decided to act morally because you DESIRED to be moral? Morality doesn't compel you to act morally. What standard could we possibly decided on other than desire. Any standard we decide on merely betrays the fact that we desire to be in line with that standard!

 

You are conflating desire with compulsion. A desire is something you have some choice over. You can say no. 

 

You put desires in some hierarchy which you fail to justify. You assert that my desire to eat the cookie was less powerful than the desire to eat the broccoli and so I was really just involuntarily compelled to follow my health desire. But the strength of the desire (which I assume YOU mean the degree to which they compel to a particular course of action) is partly determined by choices I generate. My health desire perhaps dominates because I made certain choices that allowed it to. 

If you're going to assert that all properties of desire are determined then you're begging the question. You would be assuming all desire is this way in your premises in order to conclude that all desire is this way. 

Desire is not compulsion. Animals are generally compelled by their desires/compulsions and so never really change them. But humans have a conceptual and rational ability that partly frees them from mindlessly following the strongest desire. That's why our desires can change radically. 

[Tundra]

You are conflating desire with compulsion. A desire is something you have some choice over. You can say no. 

 

You put desires in some hierarchy which you fail to justify. You assert that my desire to eat the cookie was less powerful than the desire to eat the broccoli and so I was really just involuntarily compelled to follow my health desire. But the strength of the desire (which I assume YOU mean the degree to which they compel to a particular course of action) is partly determined by choices I generate. My health desire perhaps dominates because I made certain choices that allowed it to. 

If you're going to assert that all properties of desire are determined then you're begging the question. You would be assuming all desire is this way in your premises in order to conclude that all desire is this way. 

Desire is not compulsion. Animals are generally compelled by their desires/compulsions and so never really change them. But humans have a conceptual and rational ability that partly frees them from mindlessly following the strongest desire. That's why our desires can change radically. 

Funny that you accuse me of begging the question, then define desire as "something you have choice over" Is that not begging the question?

 

Of course desires are in a hierarchy. Your actions betray your values, they reveal your values. When you act towards end X, you express that you value X, and since when you make a decision you necessarily forsake other options it can be inferred that you value what you act towards more than that which you did not act towards. If you're familiar at all with praxeology this should be very familiar. 

 

And to say that your desires are in part contingent on your past actions does not say that they are chosen, because in order to conclude from this that they are chosen, you must assume that your past actions are chosen, but we cannot assume that because that is what we are debating. 

 

Animals are compelled by desire, and we are animals are we not? Just because our desires are more complicated and are beyond just food shelter water and fucking, doesn't mean that we are not compelled by our desires. Every action is towards a desired goal. In that sense every action is compelled by that desire. Even the action of refraining from eating a delicious, hot, fresh baked, steaming, chocolate chip cookie. It is necessarily true that the action of refrain is set after some end goal, some desire.

 

Our desires change over time, sure, but so do those of animals, as evidenced by the fact that if you give a dog water, he wont sit there and drink it forever, eventually he is satiated and he leaves to do something else. We just have more complex desires because we have more complex minds, more complex social situations, etc. etc.

 

And you still haven't given a single example of a desire you chose. If it is so plentiful, then it should be easy. 

[Will Torbald]

No pause. Okay, then you're a fraud.

 

You cannot say that not addressing things is a problem.

 

There is too much packed into what people say. I cannot address everything. People can go without addressing some argument I made. That's fine. The problem is holding me to a higher standard than people hold themselves, especially given how generous I've been already. I have other things I could do with my time.

 

My comment was refuting your "competing desires" argument, and others are doing the same. Not a fraud there. You also make no effort in refuting my "can't create desires from nothing" argument, although I wonder if it's because you have no idea what to say about it. If you want a rebuttal of your "illusion" argument, there's the actual fraud. An illusion is defined by that which is not real. Therefore asking for evidence of illusions is asking for negative evidence, which you can't do. What is real is what is evident, as in, it is real that biology, through brain chemistry and neural pathways, affects people's desires and behavior - and that is provable. I can't "prove an illusion" anymore I can prove Allah isn't real with evidence. When you ask people to prove that free will is an illusion, it is you who have to prove that your concept of free will is real since where the evidence actually is leads to forces that determine to some degree if not all of people's behavior out of their choice. I argue those forces are not absolute since I am not speaking about physical determinism (predictable billiard balls from the big bang leading to funny strawman comments about fate) but brain and physiological forces that define your mind without your input.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Funny that you accuse me of begging the question, then define desire as "something you have choice over" Is that not begging the question?

 

Of course desires are in a hierarchy. Your actions betray your values, they reveal your values. When you act towards end X, you express that you value X, and since when you make a decision you necessarily forsake other options it can be inferred that you value what you act towards more than that which you did not act towards. If you're familiar at all with praxeology this should be very familiar. 

 

And to say that your desires are in part contingent on your past actions does not say that they are chosen, because in order to conclude from this that they are chosen, you must assume that your past actions are chosen, but we cannot assume that because that is what we are debating. 

 

Animals are compelled by desire, and we are animals are we not? Just because our desires are more complicated and are beyond just food shelter water and fucking, doesn't mean that we are not compelled by our desires. Every action is towards a desired goal. In that sense every action is compelled by that desire. Even the action of refraining from eating a delicious, hot, fresh baked, steaming, chocolate chip cookie. It is necessarily true that the action of refrain is set after some end goal, some desire.

 

Our desires change over time, sure, but so do those of animals, as evidenced by the fact that if you give a dog water, he wont sit there and drink it forever, eventually he is satiated and he leaves to do something else. We just have more complex desires because we have more complex minds, more complex social situations, etc. etc.

 

And you still haven't given a single example of a desire you chose. If it is so plentiful, then it should be easy. 

 

If I was begging the question by saying desire is something we have choice that would still not mean you are not begging the question by saying it's something we do not have any choice over.

 

Now you're conflating desires with values. Desires often conflict with values. We can act on a desire in violation of our values. So that doesn't justify this hierarchy of desires you posit. 

 

I'm not arguing that because our desires are part contingent on past action that they are therefore chosen. 

 

Yeah we're animals technically but there's a valid distinction between a human animals and a non-humans one in terms of conceptual ability and rationality. That's the vital difference. Animals are compelled by their desires and lack the capacity to say no. Humans have such desires but can say no (or yes I guess).  Hence the choice. 

 

If you're going to say every action is compelled by desire then concede that you are talking about compulsion. Say "compulsion", not "desire". There is a distinction there. For example if we say a person desired to stab someone and then did it, there contains in that a logical element of choice. If we say a person was compelled to stab someone we don't even need to add the "and then did it" bit. Because "compulsion" generally precludes choice.  

 

The dog in your example has not changed its desire. There's a difference between fulfilling a desire for a while and changing that desire. If you said the dog had changed it's desire to not drinking water (assume there's an alternative) based on some reason then that would be a valid comparison. 

 

Saying we have more complex minds, etc doesn't explain anything. 

 

I choose the non-aggression principle. I have a strong desire to follow it. That desire gets stronger the more choices I make. 

You might then posit some underlying desire that compels me to the nap and so on. But I logically I could choose to reject all those too. I could even choose to reject rejecting all those. I don't think there's any desire I couldn't choose to say no to. 

[RichardY]

Whatever happened to "emotions are not tools of cognition"? If there are two flavors in front of you, objectively speaking there are two choices. But subjectively speaking, in your mind, one is more tasteful to you than the other. You didn't choose your tastes, so how would you have freedom to choose if you're going to choose the one you like more? This is similar to the OP's problem with the boy she liked. She couldn't help to avoid her emotional troubles because she had no will in what she liked or not. The last part of your argument is a more verbose "I feel therefore I know". Again, Rand would have words with you.

So kind of like The Simpsons Donut Hell.

 

To Both Posters: While I would agree that feelings are not tools of rational thinking. I would say they are a factor in decision making. If the initiation of force(an Evil action) is seen and felt as a way of getting resources or gratification, then I would say you can be perfectly rational to expect a like-minded person to do the same to you.

 

 

A system may be deterministic and unpredictable, there is no contradiction there. Also I don't know if feeling that something is the case is really evidence that it is actually the case.

What example do you have of a system that is deterministic and unpredictable?

[Tundra]

If I was begging the question by saying desire is something we have choice that would still not mean you are not begging the question by saying it's something we do not have any choice over.

I didnt define desire that way, I gave an argument to demonstrate that desires are not chosen. You cannot choose to desire something you previously, just a moment ago, abhored. It's that simple.

 

 

 

Now you're conflating desires with values. Desires often conflict with values. We can act on a desire in violation of our values. So that doesn't justify this hierarchy of desires you posit. 

I avoided using the word value because people often confuse value in the sense that I mean (like, I value a grilled cheese sandwich) with value like "honesty" or "integrity". These are two different definitions of value. I am talking about the grilled cheese sandwich version, which is more or less the same thing as desire.

 

 

I'm not arguing that because our desires are part contingent on past action that they are therefore chosen. 

oh?

 

You assert that my desire to eat the cookie was less powerful than the desire to eat the broccoli and so I was really just involuntarily compelled to follow my health desire. But the strength of the desire (which I assume YOU mean the degree to which they compel to a particular course of action) is partly determined by choices I generate. My health desire perhaps dominates because I made certain choices that allowed it to. 

Because that seems to be what you are saying here, that your past choices is what allow your desire for good health to win out over delicious cookie.

 

Yeah we're animals technically but there's a valid distinction between a human animals and a non-humans one in terms of conceptual ability and rationality. That's the vital difference. Animals are compelled by their desires and lack the capacity to say no. Humans have such desires but can say no (or yes I guess).  Hence the choice. 

Humans can say no to their desires? How? I don't believe so. We just have a more complex system of desires. So some desires (like a desire for food) can be ignored in the name of a stronger desire (like a desire for health) To say that we can ignore our desires is to assert the point we are arguing here. 

 

 

If you're going to say every action is compelled by desire then concede that you are talking about compulsion. Say "compulsion", not "desire". There is a distinction there. For example if we say a person desired to stab someone and then did it, there contains in that a logical element of choice. If we say a person was compelled to stab someone we don't even need to add the "and then did it" bit. Because "compulsion" generally precludes choice.  

Compulsion is just a really strong desire. when we speak of desires and compulsions we're not speaking of different things but rather different magnitudes. And of course I think desires are similar to compulsions, and they preclude choice... thats what we're arguing about. 

 

The dog in your example has not changed its desire. There's a difference between fulfilling a desire for a while and changing that desire. If you said the dog had changed it's desire to not drinking water (assume there's an alternative) based on some reason then that would be a valid comparison. 

Sure he does, at some point he does not want any more water, it';s right there, he can have more, but he does not want more, he does not desire it, he would rather do something else, his desires changed. He wanted to alleviate his unease that resulted from thirst, he did so, now he wants to do something else. It's a perfectly valid comparison.

 

 

Saying we have more complex minds, etc doesn't explain anything. 

 

Funny given that you gave that reason earlier, and I quote. 

 

"Yeah we're animals technically but there's a valid distinction between a human animals and a non-humans one in terms of conceptual ability and rationality. That's the vital difference. Animals are compelled by their desires and lack the capacity to say no. Humans have such desires but can say no (or yes I guess).  Hence the choice."

So it's not okay for me to simply point to our complexity as an explanation for why our hierarchy of values (of desires) are much more complex, but it's okay for you to point to it to show that we have choice?

 

 

I choose the non-aggression principle. I have a strong desire to follow it. That desire gets stronger the more choices I make. 

You might then posit some underlying desire that compels me to the nap and so on. But I logically I could choose to reject all those too. I could even choose to reject rejecting all those. I don't think there's any desire I couldn't choose to say no to. 

Okay you choose the NAP and value making choices that do not violate it. How did you choose the NAP? Was it that you desired to be in line with the truth and with reason and someone presented an argument that made you believe that abiding by the nap would be the proper path for you to take to act in line with truth and reason? Because there must have been some reason that you choose the NAP, and if there was a rationality behind your 'choice' then it stands to reason that you were compelled in that direction. You had a belief, you had a desire, and that resulted in action towards that goal, that desire, that value. 

 

There were mental processes at work that concluded with you accepting the NAP as your lord and savior, that culminated in your self sacrifice towards that ideal. Are these mental processes 'choice'? did you really have free will in selecting the NAP?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I didnt define desire that way, I gave an argument to demonstrate that desires are not chosen. You cannot choose to desire something you previously, just a moment ago, abhored. It's that simple.

 

 

 

I avoided using the word value because people often confuse value in the sense that I mean (like, I value a grilled cheese sandwich) with value like "honesty" or "integrity". These are two different definitions of value. I am talking about the grilled cheese sandwich version, which is more or less the same thing as desire.

 

 

oh?

 

Because that seems to be what you are saying here, that your past choices is what allow your desire for good health to win out over delicious cookie.

 

Humans can say no to their desires? How? I don't believe so. We just have a more complex system of desires. So some desires (like a desire for food) can be ignored in the name of a stronger desire (like a desire for health) To say that we can ignore our desires is to assert the point we are arguing here. 

 

 

Compulsion is just a really strong desire. when we speak of desires and compulsions we're not speaking of different things but rather different magnitudes. And of course I think desires are similar to compulsions, and they preclude choice... thats what we're arguing about. 

 

Sure he does, at some point he does not want any more water, it';s right there, he can have more, but he does not want more, he does not desire it, he would rather do something else, his desires changed. He wanted to alleviate his unease that resulted from thirst, he did so, now he wants to do something else. It's a perfectly valid comparison.

 

 

 

Funny given that you gave that reason earlier, and I quote. 

 

"Yeah we're animals technically but there's a valid distinction between a human animals and a non-humans one in terms of conceptual ability and rationality. That's the vital difference. Animals are compelled by their desires and lack the capacity to say no. Humans have such desires but can say no (or yes I guess).  Hence the choice."

So it's not okay for me to simply point to our complexity as an explanation for why our hierarchy of values (of desires) are much more complex, but it's okay for you to point to it to show that we have choice?

 

 

Okay you choose the NAP and value making choices that do not violate it. How did you choose the NAP? Was it that you desired to be in line with the truth and with reason and someone presented an argument that made you believe that abiding by the nap would be the proper path for you to take to act in line with truth and reason? Because there must have been some reason that you choose the NAP, and if there was a rationality behind your 'choice' then it stands to reason that you were compelled in that direction. You had a belief, you had a desire, and that resulted in action towards that goal, that desire, that value. 

 

There were mental processes at work that concluded with you accepting the NAP as your lord and savior, that culminated in your self sacrifice towards that ideal. Are these mental processes 'choice'? did you really have free will in selecting the NAP?

 

You also cannot choose to have have large muscles when just a moment ago you had no muscles. By your standard no one ever chooses to gain big muscles.

The notion that you cannot choose to desire something a moment ago you abhorred has already been refuted. It does not follow that because I cannot choose such things in that moment that I therefore have no choice over any desire I may have in the future.

 

I'm not sure desire is same thing as value. I value the NAP. That doesn't mean I desire it. If I desire a cookie does that mean I value it? Saying I "I desire the cookie" and "I value the cookie" can denote two separate things (even though there may be an overlap). Desires are emotional. Values not necessarily.

 

 

 

 

Because that seems to be what you are saying here, that your past choices is what allow your desire for good health to win out over delicious cookie.

 

You said past ACTIONS. I said choices. I know choices involve actions but an action can often not involve choice. At no point have I ever argued that because desires are part contingent on past actions that therefore they are chosen. That would obviously be a fallacious argument. 

 

What do you mean when you ask how humans can say no to their desires? If you have a desire for a cookie you have a choice to eat it or not. You claim then is that's just a stronger desire which forces you to avoid the cookie. But you still have the choice to eat the cookie. The desire isn't necessarily in total control of you. That would be a compulsion. 

 

I didn't say we could IGNORE our desires. It's best to use the terms I use and not completely different ones. 

 

Compulsion and desire are not just different in magnitude. They are different in kind. 

 

http://the-difference-between.com/desire/compulsion

 

When a person has a compulsion to do X that means they generally have no choice and have to do it.

If a person has a desire then they generally have a choice and don't have to do it. 

There's an overlap with these but the distinction in kind is valid. 

In your position the strongest underlying desire is a compulsion which the person has no choice over. You need to start saying "compulsion" and not "desire" for the sake of accuracy. 

 

 

There's a difference between the dog's desire changing and the dog changing its desire. The dog is imply fulfilling its desire, not changing it. It's not like it weened itself of water through will power or something. When I choose to eat the cookie and then no longer desire a cookie my desire for cookies hasn't changed. The comparison to what I'm saying is not valid. 

 

 

 

 

So it's not okay for me to simply point to our complexity as an explanation for why our hierarchy of values (of desires) are much more complex, but it's okay for you to point to it to show that we have choice?

 

 I made an argument demonstrating the actual relevant distinction between humans and animals. I didn't just say "We're more complex, therefore...X". Complexity tells me nothing. 

 

As for choosing the NAP, yes I know there are lot's of drivers behind it but there's also me who navigated that sea of desires and preferences. I have some degree of volition that shapes my desires, etc. 

[Kevin Beal]

If I am wrong about something, I want someone to tell me. How better to learn that I am wrong about something then to engage in arguments? Of course you have utterly failed to demonstrate that I am wrong about anything on any front. You are too busy grandstanding, sitting on your high horse and acting like I am beneath you.

I am still accepting counter arguments from other people. Just because I couldn't care less what you think, doesn't mean I don't care about the truth, you grandiose hypocrite.

[labmath2]

Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet debate free will. Sam argues there is no free will and Dennet argues the mainstream notion of free will is mistaken, but there is free will in another sense. Enjoy.

 

[Tundra]

I am still accepting counter arguments from other people. Just because I couldn't care less what you think, doesn't mean I don't care about the truth, you grandiose hypocrite.

 

Any evidence that I am a hypocrite? Any at all? I'd love to see it. I don't grandstand, for I have no audience here. I never accused you of not caring about the truth, I merely said that I personally value the truth. I obviously don't think you are beneath me because I am attempting to engage with you, which I wouldn't if I thought you were beneath me. So where is the hypocrisy Kevin?

 

 

You also cannot choose to have have large muscles when just a moment ago you had no muscles. By your standard no one ever chooses to gain big muscles.

The notion that you cannot choose to desire something a moment ago you abhorred has already been refuted. It does not follow that because I cannot choose such things in that moment that I therefore have no choice over any desire I may have in the future.

Having muscles is a physical attribute, not a desire. Obviously nobody can change their physical attributes by will alone. 

 

Also if you have no choice in the moment, then it DOES follow that you have no choices in the future, unless you can demonstrate that the future is some how different in such a radical way that one moment we have no free will and the next we do. After all is the future not made up of moments? 

 

It doesn't make sense to me that you would be able to choose your own desires, because the act of choosing desires would obviously be the result of some greater desire. If you at this moment desire brownies and abhor broccoli, and in the next you desire broccoli, there is obviously some greater (higher order) desire driving this, like a desire for health. 

 

I'm not sure desire is same thing as value. I value the NAP. That doesn't mean I desire it. If I desire a cookie does that mean I value it? Saying I "I desire the cookie" and "I value the cookie" can denote two separate things (even though there may be an overlap). Desires are emotional. Values not necessarily.

Because you're using 'value' in the sense of values, similar to the word virtue. I am using it in the sense of value in the Austrian sense. In that sense "I desire the cookie" and "I value the cookie" are the same thing. Desires are not necessarily emotional. I desire to go to work, why? Because they pay me money and I want that money so that I may buy food and a place to live etc. Is this an 'emotional' desire? In either case, the way I intend the word desire to be interpreted in my argument, is as I described. 

 

 

 

You said past ACTIONS. I said choices. I know choices involve actions but an action can often not involve choice. At no point have I ever argued that because desires are part contingent on past actions that therefore they are chosen. That would obviously be a fallacious argument. 

Either way, to say that your desires are contingent on past choices is to say that we have choices, assumes we have choices, which is what we are arguing about. You cannot simply assert that you choose your desires because in the past you had choices. 

 

 

What do you mean when you ask how humans can say no to their desires? If you have a desire for a cookie you have a choice to eat it or not. You claim then is that's just a stronger desire which forces you to avoid the cookie. But you still have the choice to eat the cookie. The desire isn't necessarily in total control of you. That would be a compulsion. 

You can't assert that you have a choice regarding the cookie... thats the very argument we're having. And you can't assert that you aren't controlled by your desires because "thats compulsion" (which by the way is a word you introduced, not I)

 

I gave an argument for HOW you are controlled by your beliefs and desires, you are simply asserting that we're not and there is totally choice involved, your only reasoning thus far has been that we go against some of our desires (which is obviously true since we have conflicting desires EG: desire for cookies, and desire for health.)

 

 

I didn't say we could IGNORE our desires. It's best to use the terms I use and not completely different ones. 

 

You mean like how you introduced compulsion? Also for my own curiosity, whats the difference between "saying no" to a desire (your words) and ignoring a desire?

 

Compulsion and desire are not just different in magnitude. They are different in kind. 

 

http://the-difference-between.com/desire/compulsion

 

When a person has a compulsion to do X that means they generally have no choice and have to do it.

If a person has a desire then they generally have a choice and don't have to do it. 

There's an overlap with these but the distinction in kind is valid. 

In your position the strongest underlying desire is a compulsion which the person has no choice over. You need to start saying "compulsion" and not "desire" for the sake of accuracy. 

You introduced compulsion, I was under the impression that compulsion just meant you acted without choice (Which as you surely know is the very subject of this debate) so of course I said that desire and compulsion were the same thing. I was mistaken about the definition of compulsion and I'll admit that. But if that is the definition of compulsion then it has no place in this debate, because I believe that all of my actions are without choice, and yet nearly all of my actions are not 'irrational' as the definition of compulsion states. So either compulsion means something that drives action without choice, in which case I was using it correctly. Or compulsion means something that drives irrational action without choice, in which case it has no place in this debate because to say that I as a determinism think all action is irrational would be a strawman. 

 

There's a difference between the dog's desire changing and the dog changing its desire. The dog is imply fulfilling its desire, not changing it. It's not like it weened itself of water through will power or something. When I choose to eat the cookie and then no longer desire a cookie my desire for cookies hasn't changed. The comparison to what I'm saying is not valid. 

You misunderstand me then. This would be a lot simpler if you were familiar with praxeology, so give me a second to try and explain.

 

If you are thirsty, you desire water more than you would if you were not thirsty. You walk to the kitchen and drink water, and the circumstances have changed, you are no longer thirsty, your desire for water changes. Desires come and go, they change constantly. This can be inferred from the initial assumption I made in my argument "when a person acts, they pursues their most highly valued (or desired) ends through what they believe to be the most appropriate means."   The value you place on water increases when you are thirsty, and decreases when you are not thirsty. Same thing applies to dogs. When he sates his thirst, his desires change, and thus his actions change as a result. If you think that your desire for a cookie doesn't change after eating a cookie, then look up marginal utility. 

" I made an argument demonstrating the actual relevant distinction between humans and animals. I didn't just say "We're more complex, therefore...X". Complexity tells me nothing. "

 

 

It is plainly obvious that human desires are more complex than that of a dog. Do I really need to argue that human desires are more complex than that of a dog or a mouse? Please. Which was my original claim of complexity. You asserted that the key difference was choice (again, the thing we're arguing about?)  

 

 

"As for choosing the NAP, yes I know there are lot's of drivers behind it but there's also me who navigated that sea of desires and preferences. I have some degree of volition that shapes my desires, etc. "

 

To say that "I have some degree of volition that shapes my desire" is to simply say you have choice over your desires. If your argument is assertion then I can simply assert "nuh uh!". Assertions are not arguments.

As for choosing the nap, you gave this as an example of a desire you chose, I asked you what drove this choice and was it some desire to be inline with what you believe to be the truth, your response is that there were lots of drivers behind it, but that there was totally some choice there! please explain the choice, how did you CHOOSE it? 

 

 

 

What example do you have of a system that is deterministic and unpredictable?

Weather is an easy one.

 

Also check this out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory 

 

From the wiki page: Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.^[2] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.^[3] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.^[4][5] 

 

 

PS: I had to cut out some quote blocks to make the system allow me to post, sorry for the reduced readability. I put those quotes from teabag in italics. 

[broadie]

I think we have to dive a little below the surface of the conscious ego to find the source of free will. There is a nothingness, an apparent nothingness out of which we imaginatively create objects of desire. That nothingness is the mere decision to be free. Our range of choice expands, and thus our will, our central being can move toward its fulfillment which is not necessarily reducible to biological urges. Can we freely will to die, or sacrifice to advance an idea of freedom, or resist an abridgment of freedom. What is the source of free creative acts? Was Beethoven compelled to write the 9th Symphony, and how on earth could that be determined? Free  will is a self actualizing concept

[Kikker]

I think we have to dive a little below the surface of the conscious ego to find the source of free will.

 

Your unconscious?

[Kikker]

A video which, in my opinion, describes hard determinism and libertarianism pretty clear.

[cassidy408]

there is no conflict here. We will but we are pre programmed for certain likenesses. We do with that likeness what we will to an extent, and what is already willed to a certain extent.

[David Ottinger]

 

[Man can do what he wills; he cannot, however, will what he wills.]

 

 

This sets up a false dilemma whereby one is required to obtain omnipotence in order to exercise free will.  In other words, omnipotence is conflated with free will.  If you define free will outside of reality, then yes, free will does not exist. 

 

So, if you want to say we are not capable of prescribing the governing principles of reality (i.e. play god), then I would agree because that would be omnipotence. 

 

Free will, however, is the ability to respond to the governing principles of reality insofar as to affect consequences.

 

Governing principle + choice = consequence

 

That means your awareness of governing principles respective of the self matters.  Your imagination (i.e. creativity) matters.  Your self-discipline matters.  And, your cognitive abilities (i.e. conscience) matters.

 

What you focus on will affect your thinking.  What you expose yourself to on a daily basis will affect your thinking.  And you have cognitive influence on all of this, thus you're capable of influencing what you will because that is what the gift of self-awareness brings you. 

[Kikker]

This sets up a false dilemma whereby one is required to obtain omnipotence in order to exercise free will.  In other words, omnipotence is conflated with free will.  If you define free will outside of reality, then yes, free will does not exist. 

 

Well this is a quote from an Schopenhauer attacking the position you just described. As it was a relevant position at that time.

 

So, if you want to say we are not capable of prescribing the governing principles of reality (i.e. play god), then I would agree because that would be omnipotence. 

 

Do you mean the opposite; if we are capable of prescribing the governing principles of reality we would be playing god? Or not prescribed to "______"

 

Free will, however, is the ability to respond to the governing principles of reality insofar as to affect consequences.

 

Your definition is incomplete as any reproducing organism and some artificial intelligences aren't excluded from the definition. Unless you intended them to be included ofcourse.

 

Governing principle + choice = consequence

 

That means your awareness of governing principles respective of the self matters.  Your imagination (i.e. creativity) matters.  Your self-discipline matters.  And, your cognitive abilities (i.e. conscience) matters.

 

Side note: isn't imagination an extension of cognitive abilities?

 

What you focus on will affect your thinking.  What you expose yourself to on a daily basis will affect your thinking.  And you have cognitive influence on all of this, thus you're capable of influencing what you will because that is what the gift of self-awareness brings you. 

 

If your exposure to things affects your thinking when did you first choose what you where exposed to? I mean for a good part of your childhood you couldn't choose what you were exposed to. Furthermore when someone first chooses what he is exposed to how can that person be certain that his thinking wasn't the result of his previous exposures influencing his thinking which he couldn't choose? And if it's not the result of previous exposures, how would he make such a decision?

 

If the above doesn't even matter, why is will free? I mean, thoughts you have influence on and thoughts you don't have influence on are both part of free will. Are we always assuming that some part of your will is free with every action? Don't you get in a philosophical mess when you assume some part of an action is free but you don't know how much of it? What is the difference between a person unable to have empathy and someone who is able but doesn't have it in a particular instance?

 

If an decision is always free, does there need to be a difference between being self-aware and free will? Is exercising free will simply being self-aware? What is the difference between calling bad behavior a sign of undesirable brain functionality or a sign of bad character?

[David Ottinger]

 

This sets up a false dilemma whereby one is required to obtain omnipotence in order to exercise free will.  In other words, omnipotence is conflated with free will.  If you define free will outside of reality, then yes, free will does not exist. 

 

Well this is a quote from an Schopenhauer attacking the position you just described. As it was a relevant position at that time.

 

So, if you want to say we are not capable of prescribing the governing principles of reality (i.e. play god), then I would agree because that would be omnipotence. 

 

(1) Do you mean the opposite; if we are capable of prescribing the governing principles of reality we would be playing god? Or not prescribed to "______"

 

Free will, however, is the ability to respond to the governing principles of reality insofar as to affect consequences.

 

(2) Your definition is incomplete as any reproducing organism and some artificial intelligences aren't excluded from the definition. Unless you intended them to be included ofcourse.

 

Governing principle + choice = consequence

 

That means your awareness of governing principles respective of the self matters.  Your imagination (i.e. creativity) matters.  Your self-discipline matters.  And, your cognitive abilities (i.e. conscience) matters.

 

(3) Side note: isn't imagination an extension of cognitive abilities?

 

What you focus on will affect your thinking.  What you expose yourself to on a daily basis will affect your thinking.  And you have cognitive influence on all of this, thus you're capable of influencing what you will because that is what the gift of self-awareness brings you. 

 

(4)  If your exposure to things affects your thinking when did you first choose what you where exposed to? I mean for a good part of your childhood you couldn't choose what you were exposed to. Furthermore when someone first chooses what he is exposed to how can that person be certain that his thinking wasn't the result of his previous exposures influencing his thinking which he couldn't choose? And if it's not the result of previous exposures, how would he make such a decision?

 

(5) If the above doesn't even matter, why is will free? I mean, thoughts you have influence on and thoughts you don't have influence on are both part of free will. Are we always assuming that some part of your will is free with every action? Don't you get in a philosophical mess when you assume some part of an action is free but you don't know how much of it? What is the difference between a person unable to have empathy and someone who is able but doesn't have it in a particular instance?

 

(6) If an decision is always free, does there need to be a difference between being self-aware and free will? Is exercising free will simply being self-aware? What is the difference between calling bad behavior a sign of undesirable brain functionality or a sign of bad character?

 

 

 

(1)  The ability to prescribe/create (however you want to put it) the governing principles of reality would be omnipotence.  To have omnipotence would be to be god or play god.  That's what I meant.  What I'm saying is that this is not possible.  And, if this is ones definition of free will, then we have defined free will outside of reality.

 

(2)  Yes, every animal has a degree of will, but their thinking isn't on par with our degree of abstraction, nor do they have hands like we do.  All this means is that the subject's options to affect the environment thus one's circumstances are limited.    

 

(3)  Yes, your imagination is an extension of cognitive abilities.  What I was trying to convey was that the way one thinks matters, e.g. problem solving skills.  This ties into self-discipline.  For example, one can commit to a methodology thereby affecting his/her thinking as one's paradigm moves from subjectivity to objectivity.  Committing to a methodology is basically a hack on our subjectivity.  We will never achieve omniscience, so demanding 100% objectivity would be demanding the impossible.   

 

(4) What does it mater what one has been exposed to when it comes to free will?  i.e. Why is free will predicated on controlling what I am exposed to rather than exerting an influence?  Choice gives us the ability to influence consequences, not control them.  For example, one can commit to the scientific method, thereby producing the most accurate awareness of these governing principles which we have ever known.  From these discoveries we can choose how to position ourselves thereby landing people on the moon, curing disease, and resolving famine.  The more one exercises his/her will, the more mastery is developed in that discipline.  What you choose to practice, you will become.   

 

(5) Will is free because no other can decide how you will respond to events.  That is your sovereignty.  The forces of nature produce a box that you can play in, but it is on you to decide how you will play.  If one infers that to mean life is a cage, then that is how he/she has chosen to take it regardless of whether that individual realizes why he/she made that choice.  Understanding oneself in this regard is why self-awareness is important.  This sort of abstraction of the self is a higher brain function, and utilizing such functions leads to more choices.  

 

As far as empathy goes, I do not understand what this has to do with free will.

 

(6) Free from what?  Because, we are never free from the laws of nature, nor is it a cage.  This would be a false dichotomy.  Self-awareness is an element of free will.  Self-awareness grants a subject a larger array of choices.  If you permit me to anthropomorphize the laws of nature for the following analogy, then it may serve to provide a better understanding of free will:  In essence, free will is one's ability to contract with nature.  The scope of which is only determined by the essence of a man, i.e. his/her integrity.  "Good vs Evil" is a dichotomy of man, not of nature.  And, you have the ability to affect how you choose to live.     

[Kikker]

(1)  The ability to prescribe/create (however you want to put it) the governing principles of reality would be omnipotence.  To have omnipotence would be to be god or play god.  That's what I meant.  What I'm saying is that this is not possible.  And, if this is ones definition of free will, then we have defined free will outside of reality.

 

(2)  Yes, every animal has a degree of will, but their thinking isn't on par with our degree of abstraction, nor do they have hands like we do.  All this means is that the subject's options to affect the environment thus one's circumstances are limited.    

 

(3)  Yes, your imagination is an extension of cognitive abilities.  What I was trying to convey was that the way one thinks matters, e.g. problem solving skills.  This ties into self-discipline.  For example, one can commit to a methodology thereby affecting his/her thinking as one's paradigm moves from subjectivity to objectivity.  Committing to a methodology is basically a hack on our subjectivity.  We will never achieve omniscience, so demanding 100% objectivity would be demanding the impossible.   

 

(4) What does it mater what one has been exposed to when it comes to free will?  i.e. Why is free will predicated on controlling what I am exposed to rather than exerting an influence?  Choice gives us the ability to influence consequences, not control them.  For example, one can commit to the scientific method, thereby producing the most accurate awareness of these governing principles which we have ever known.  From these discoveries we can choose how to position ourselves thereby landing people on the moon, curing disease, and resolving famine.  The more one exercises his/her will, the more mastery is developed in that discipline.  What you choose to practice, you will become.   

 

(5) Will is free because no other can decide how you will respond to events.  That is your sovereignty.  The forces of nature produce a box that you can play in, but it is on you to decide how you will play.  If one infers that to mean life is a cage, then that is how he/she has chosen to take it regardless of whether that individual realizes why he/she made that choice.  Understanding oneself in this regard is why self-awareness is important.  This sort of abstraction of the self is a higher brain function, and utilizing such functions leads to more choices.  

 

As far as empathy goes, I do not understand what this has to do with free will.

 

(6) Free from what?  Because, we are never free from the laws of nature, nor is it a cage.  This would be a false dichotomy.  Self-awareness is an element of free will.  Self-awareness grants a subject a larger array of choices.  If you permit me to anthropomorphize the laws of nature for the following analogy, then it may serve to provide a better understanding of free will:  In essence, free will is one's ability to contract with nature.  The scope of which is only determined by the essence of a man, i.e. his/her integrity.  "Good vs Evil" is a dichotomy of man, not of nature.  And, you have the ability to affect how you choose to live.     

(1) Look, the thing is that Schopenhauer set up a logical proof in which we assume that people aren't omnipotent and that willing ones will requires somebody to be omnipotent therefore nobody wills one wills and we have to assume that the "will" is caused by something else. That's all the quote says, it's not a false dilemma where free will is defined outside of reality, it's the exclusion of a self-causing will. Nothing more nothing less.  Schopenhauer later proceeds to argue that:

 

Because our existence came forth by our ancestors will to survive (assumption)

Humans have inherited that will (assumption)

So our will must at least facilitate survival.  (conclusion)

Human behavior demonstrates our will to survive is the driving force of our existence (assumption)

So our will is inherently focused on survival (conclusion)

For our will to be meaningful it can't come forth out of the necessity to survive (assumption)

So our will is meaningless (conclusion)

 

Argue again his reasoning, as there is plenty wrong. But please, not against some meaningless straw-man.

 

(4) You might have noticed but the paragraphs were in the trend of determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism respectively. If you don't hold the assumption you don't have to argue against it. Saves time.

 

(5) So even your thoughts are given to you by nature? You just have to "decide" what to do with them?

 

like you said with the box, if you miss a brain function making you unable to be empathetic at all (smaller box) or you don't use that brain function be be empathetic in a certain situation what is the difference between the two concerning the use of free will? You can change empathic into any emotion btw.

 

(6) A decision by free will is a free decision, at least in my argument it was. Let me ask the same questions again since you didn't answer them.

 

If an decision is always free, does there need to be a difference between being self-aware and free will? Is exercising free will simply being self-aware? What is the difference between calling bad behavior a sign of undesirable brain functionality or a sign of bad character?

 

Or maybe just I didn't understand how "good vs Evil" being a human construct prevents it from being relevant in a free will discussion, could you explain?

[David Ottinger]

(1) Look, the thing is that Schopenhauer set up a logical proof in which we assume that people aren't omnipotent and that willing ones will requires somebody to be omnipotent therefore nobody wills one wills and we have to assume that the "will" is caused by something else. That's all the quote says, it's not a false dilemma where free will is defined outside of reality, it's the exclusion of a self-causing will. Nothing more nothing less.  Schopenhauer later proceeds to argue that:

 

Because our existence came forth by our ancestors will to survive (assumption)

Humans have inherited that will (assumption)

So our will must at least facilitate survival.  (conclusion)

Human behavior demonstrates our will to survive is the driving force of our existence (assumption)

So our will is inherently focused on survival (conclusion)

For our will to be meaningful it can't come forth out of the necessity to survive (assumption)

So our will is meaningless (conclusion)

 

Argue again his reasoning, as there is plenty wrong. But please, not against some meaningless straw-man.

 

(4) You might have noticed but the paragraphs were in the trend of determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism respectively. If you don't hold the assumption you don't have to argue against it. Saves time.

 

(5) So even your thoughts are given to you by nature? You just have to "decide" what to do with them?

 

like you said with the box, if you miss a brain function making you unable to be empathetic at all (smaller box) or you don't use that brain function be be empathetic in a certain situation what is the difference between the two concerning the use of free will? You can change empathic into any emotion btw.

 

(6) A decision by free will is a free decision, at least in my argument it was. Let me ask the same questions again since you didn't answer them.

 

If an decision is always free, does there need to be a difference between being self-aware and free will? Is exercising free will simply being self-aware? (7) What is the difference between calling bad behavior a sign of undesirable brain functionality or a sign of bad character?

 

Or maybe just I didn't understand how "good vs Evil" being a human construct prevents it from being relevant in a free will discussion, could you explain?

 

 

(1)  When you (or anyone for that matter) says, "...willing ones will requires somebody to be omnipotent..." You have defined will outside of reality.  So, you edify my point by making that the requisite for will power to exist.  If that is the definition of will power, then we've setup a false dilemma.  I have no reason to accept that as an objective definition of will power. 

 

I fail to see how this is a straw man.

 

(5)  I am a man of nature.  We all are.  As a result there is a nature to our being -- which implies limitations.  But, just because there are limitations, that does not automatically imply that we're finite.  Consider set theory.  You can have an infinite set of infinities.  That means there can be infinities of infinities.  Hence, the golden ratio.  Or, the idea of a fractal universe.   

 

In other words, even though there is no such thing as true random, that doesn't mean the variability of reality can not be influenced by man.  The degree to which we can affect our environment is proof that we are capable of being a force of nature.

 

And, that in essence is will power.  It's not omnipotence.  But, it can affect the ebb and flow of space-time.  Granted, there are larger forces of nature influencing our reality.  And, yes, our fight against entropy is ultimately a driving force that influences our nature.  But, just because there are parameters, that doesn't mean there cannot be anomalies that serve as doors (if you will) to another framework.

 

An animal that lacks empathy, simply cannot utilize that particular framework to his/her/its advantage.  It just doesn't have that sort of metric.  In order for a being to achieve an end, that entity is limited by its nature.

 

And, human have adapted insofar as to produce the power of abstraction thereby allowing one the ability to hack reality, thus affecting consequences.  Exercising ones will power does not imply certainty of experience.  Will power only implies influence on events, not control of events.

 

 

(6) I don't know what it means for a decision to be free.  Free from what?  Reality?  Because there is no escaping reality.  

 

 

(7) We're getting into morality here, and with that we're introducing a sub-topic to free will.  Of course, I agree that there are physiological aspects that affect a humans ability to be self-aware enough (or intelligent enough) to understand moral theories and their benefits, thus affecting the individual's ability to influence his/her own behavior with respect to those theories.  But, that is not cause for a moral free pass.  You still have the de facto vs de jure dichotomy even if people do not understand it.  For example, a foreigner can steal someone's property not knowing there is a pre-existing claim on that object.  That lack of intent to steal doesn't mean that incident cannot be defined as an act of theft.  Intent simply affects the degree to which it is malicious.  We can discover the intent of an individual.  Intent is evidence of free will.  

 

And, the overall point is that not all beings have the same amount of will power.  That implies that will power can be expended.  How you expend your will power today will affect how you expend your will power tomorrow.  It also affects the amount of will power one can expend as it is like a muscle that can be developed and made stronger.

 

 

Clearly, "will power" isn't an abstraction regarding how omnipotent one can be because there is no reason to accept that we are omnipotent when everything tells us otherwise.  Instead, what this concept abstracts is one's ability to influence the outcome of events with respect to the self.

 

Thus, it is more of a spectrum than merely omnipotence -- which would be the ultimate form of will power.  But, again, what's the point of contemplating omnipotence when it is beyond us?

 

That is simply not a dilemma we have.  Our dilemma is discerning what we can an cannot influence.  And exercising that influence is what free will is all about.