Incompatibilism

[RichardY]

Incompatibilism - If the Universe is Deterministic, then Freewill is false.

My view is that the Universe is NOT Deterministic. However, to account for the possibility of freewill, something brought order to chaos, perhaps a different kind of chaos, that something is chance or quantum mechanics. "The unmoved mover" - Aristotle.

Acceptance of Freewill.
I view Freewill as a potentiality not actuality,  an Illusion, but not a delusion(unless a Determinist....). Just as Infinity is a potentiality not an actuality, and also an illusion. For if infinite were actual, how could one make sense of creation... one couldn't. Finite universe. 

Despite my thinking being that freewill is an illusion how might I approach as close to it as possible. To truly have freewill shouldn't a person be able to execute at two cognitive simultaneously, true multitasking, thinking how a gunslinger might be able to shoot two different targets simultaneously. For the moment you have freewill the "I" or ego does not exist?

Ideal standard - To have Freewill is the ability to compare to an ideal standard, I have heard said. Although about only standard I have is "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you". - The Silver Rule.(Also heard it mentioned in "Skin in the Game"). Ideals wise personally pretty base.

 

Is Freewill an illusion, how can it be actual?

 

Beyond Good and Evil

“Freedom of the will”—that is the expression for the complex state of delight of the person exercising volition, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the order—who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over obstacles, but thinks within himself that it was really his will itself that overcame them. In this way the person exercising volition adds the feelings of delight of his successful executive instruments, the useful “underwills” or undersouls— indeed, our body is but a social structure composed of many souls—to his feelings of delight as commander. L’effet c’est moi, what happens here is what happens in every well-constructed and happy commonwealth; namely, the governing class identifies itself with the successes of the commonwealth. In all willing it is absolutely a question of commanding and obeying, on the basis, as already said, of a social structure composed of many “souls.” Hence a philosopher should claim the right to include willing as such within the sphere of morals—morals being understood. as the doctrine of the relations of supremacy under which the phenomenon of "life" comes to be.

[Boss]

2 hours ago, RichardY said:

Is Freewill an illusion, how can it be actual?

I think to call something an illusion, it would require proof.

Like if there is a chair in your room and I suddenly say that chair is an illusion, that wouldn't mean much. However, If I turn off the hologram and the chair disappears then we can objectively call it an illusion. 

To me, free will is as true as the question of free will. For free will is what ask and answer such thing. And until someone can objectively and accurately determine the "deterministic" nature of such thing before it actually happens. I will disregard determinism as an unproven hypothesis.

There are many determinable things in this world like gravity, math, time, earth rotation etc but these all are objectively provable with evidence. 

Determinism, which I think claims throughout a person's life, their ability to choose between different possible courses is an illusion, is an unproven claim. 

[ancapper]

Determinism and Free Will are both true, however determinism is only true for the system as a whole, aka the universe. In most other situations free will apply.

Let me know if you wish me to unpack anything in my statement.

[RichardY]

4 hours ago, Boss said:

I think to call something an illusion, it would require proof.

Like if there is a chair in your room and I suddenly say that chair is an illusion, that wouldn't mean much. However, If I turn off the hologram and the chair disappears then we can objectively call it an illusion. 

To me, free will is as true as the question of free will. For free will is what ask and answer such thing. And until someone can objectively and accurately determine the "deterministic" nature of such thing before it actually happens. I will disregard determinism as an unproven hypothesis.

There are many determinable things in this world like gravity, math, time, earth rotation etc but these all are objectively provable with evidence. 

Determinism, which I think claims throughout a person's life, their ability to choose between different possible courses is an illusion, is an unproven claim. 

A chair though has tangible substance. How far can the same be said of freewill? An abstract concept like infinity can be said to "exist", but does it exist in so far as it is an illusion, something never realised? What in effect would be the substance of freewill?

For me freewill is questionable, but determinism is complete bunk. How it operates though I don't know,  I think it would be like the idea that as soon as you question your happiness or joy it ceases to be. I think much is influenced by personality, whether the ego is constructed relative to others or despite others, coming from or going to. 

Is Mathematics really deterministic though? Reminded of the quote "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I wouldn't say choice(as it relates to freewill) is an illusion for a Determinist, but a delusion, literally crazy. Might be why Sam Harris( A Determinist) & Stefan have/can never debate, as Sam is effectively calling Stefan crazy or insane.

3 minutes ago, ancapper said:

Determinism and Free Will are both true, however determinism is only true for the system as a whole, aka the universe. In most other situations free will apply.

Let me know if you wish me to unpack anything in my statement.

That would be Compatibilism, Stefan talked about it in a 3 part presentation on freewill, referred to it as "The Best of Both Worlds". The position is logically inconsitent and is not helped by saying things are predetermined even though we don't know the outcome, Clockwork Orange style.

[ancapper]

33 minutes ago, RichardY said:

That would be Compatibilism, Stefan talked about it in a 3 part presentation on freewill, referred to it as "The Best of Both Worlds". The position is logically inconsitent and is not helped by saying things are predetermined even though we don't know the outcome, Clockwork Orange style.

OK cool, I did not know that thats the correct label for my view. Thank you for pointing that out, I guess I'm a Compatibilist. So what part about Compatibilism is inconsistent? My argument is that determinism is true, but only on the most universal level and sometimes locally. Free will is true, but not always. For People, humans, free will exists only when they make choices. But we can't make choices literally all the time (our brains would at some point be too big and too expensive) so we create rules instead. The rules allows us to "act" deterministically by just using a IF/THEN rule. Let me know if you want me to unpack something further.

[Boss]

9 hours ago, RichardY said:

A chair though has tangible substance. How far can the same be said of freewill? An abstract concept like infinity can be said to "exist", but does it exist in so far as it is an illusion, something never realised? What in effect would be the substance of freewill?

For me freewill is questionable, but determinism is complete bunk. How it operates though I don't know,  I think it would be like the idea that as soon as you question your happiness or joy it ceases to be. I think much is influenced by personality, whether the ego is constructed relative to others or despite others, coming from or going to. 

Is Mathematics really deterministic though? Reminded of the quote "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I wouldn't say choice(as it relates to freewill) is an illusion for a Determinist, but a delusion, literally crazy. Might be why Sam Harris( A Determinist) & Stefan have/can never debate, as Sam is effectively calling Stefan crazy or insane.

That would be Compatibilism, Stefan talked about it in a 3 part presentation on freewill, referred to it as "The Best of Both Worlds". The position is logically inconsitent and is not helped by saying things are predetermined even though we don't know the outcome, Clockwork Orange style.

Yea the chair was just a visual example. Things like gravity which has already been determined would probably be a better example.

Like how things fall are already determined by the law of gravity which is provable and testable. 

As far as math is determined, I was thinking in the way someone can input 1+1= the answer is already determined by the laws of mathematics. There is no choice in the answer of a math equation. Probably not a good example but I hope you get the point in that determinable things like gravity can and should be proven to be objective and true.

However, Determinism is not proven. so the name determinism, when there is nothing determinable, makes it unproven right from the start for me. 

Meanwhile, free will is testable and provable. like you and I can decide to reply or not to reply to this post. And someone like Sam Harris or whoever, calling this ability to choose between different possible courses as an illusion, is an unproven claim.

[RichardY]

12 minutes ago, ancapper said:

OK cool, I did not know that thats the correct label for my view. Thank you for pointing that out, I guess I'm a Compatibilist. So what part about Compatibilism is inconsistent? My argument is that determinism is true, but only on the most universal level and sometimes locally. Free will is true, but not always. For People, humans, free will exists only when they make choices. But we can't make choices literally all the time (our brains would at some point be too big and too expensive) so we create rules instead. The rules allows us to "act" deterministically by just using a IF/THEN rule. Let me know if you want me to unpack something further.

In that case you end up with a dualism between mind and matter. Which in theory detaches the mind from mattter, a kind of ghost self, which leads perhaps in theory to alternative universes.  If however, there is only one universe and it is deterministic, how can matter behave differently because it is apart of a sentient organism, given deterministic laws of physics, It can't. I do however think that Actual Freewill is only possible under a kind dualism, however this would posit an immaterial spirit, and given that I'm going for the simplist and seemingly most nihilistic explanation, hopefully the least vain, I have to reject it.

I like the fact you mentioned the creation of rules in the brain acting deterministically. I do agree that there is some determinism more like a chain and that only in thought does chance or quantum mechanics have any significant impact on alternative action.

1 hour ago, Boss said:

Yea the chair was just a visual example. Things like gravity which has already been determined would probably be a better example.

Like how things fall are already determined by the law of gravity which is provable and testable. 

As far as math is determined, I was thinking in the way someone can input 1+1= the answer is already determined by the laws of mathematics. There is no choice in the answer of a math equation. Probably not a good example but I hope you get the point in that determinable things like gravity can and should be proven to be objective and true.

However, Determinism is not proven. so the name determinism, when there is nothing determinable, makes it unproven right from the start for me. 

Meanwhile, free will is testable and provable. like you and I can decide to reply or not to reply to this post. And someone like Sam Harris or whoever, calling this ability to choose between different possible courses as an illusion, is an unproven claim.

You see I would say gravity is relational and in the absence of some kind of unified field theory. Gravity I think is determined relatively by space time(influenced by entropy), as opposed to gravity determining time. 

I would not say there are laws in Mathematics, like can be said of physics. Instead I would say there are relationships. Instead of 1+1 = 2 being the psychological equivalent of 1 litre and then 1 litre is 2 litres. I would view it as something akin to Set Theory, 2 overlapping circles and not deterministically. 

Decide, perhaps, though in my case more of a fix.

Not Illusion, Delusion. Hard Determinism, literally taking determinism to a logical psychological conclusion, perhaps even psychopathic nature.

[ofd]

Quote

Gravity I think is determined relatively by space time

Indeed. According to general relativity, gravity isn't a force, but a flow from spacetime from one location to another one. Any object, that is free from all non-gravitational forces follows the path of maximum proper time, compared to other paths of spacetime that have the same paths that have the same endpoints, which is also the point of greatest aging. In other words, things fall in geodesic lines to the centre of gravity, because there times passes slower than where they started, absent non-gravitational forces.

[lorry]

Hearts don't have beats, hearts beat. Same idea here.

[RichardY]

Panpsychism (Leibnizian)- The Puppetmasters (1994) Universe. "You" are along for the ride and God is the Puppeteer. The "Best" of all worlds - Leibniz.

Substance Dualism (Descarte)(Socrates)(Plato) - "Event Horizon", (1997) Universes. "Where we're going, we don't need eyes to see." Freewill is an Actuality. Moral Responsiblity is REAL!, everything you do here matters. "We are not of this World" - Vicktor Frankl.

Neutral Monism - (Aristotle) (Nietzsche) - Oblivion. Freewill exists as a potentiality, the only earthly certainty is oblivion. Morality is BS, what matters is kinship (why Aristotle argues for Monarchy). Every action aims at the "Good" or else it is insanity.

Pantheism - Solipsitic. The self is the only thing that exists "You are God!" and anything you do is fine.

 

Tend towards Neutral Monism. I can't see how freewill is actual, unless in a Substance Dualistic  Universes.

[Mole]

On 4/18/2018 at 8:24 PM, RichardY said:

Ideal standard - To have Freewill is the ability to compare to an ideal standard, I have heard said. Although about only standard I have is "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you". - The Silver Rule.(Also heard it mentioned in "Skin in the Game"). Ideals wise personally pretty base.

I'm sure you have more standards. Your health is an ideal standard. Science is an ideal standard. Wealth is an ideal standard. Etc. Your decisions are influenced by these standards. You see whether some action aligns with these standards and if they align then you will choose it. Animals cannot do this because they have no conceptual knowledge of standards like health, science and wealth.

[RichardY]

What would you define health as conceptually, as an ideal standard?
...Science?
...Wealth?
 

On 6/4/2018 at 5:26 PM, Mole said:

I'm sure you have more standards. Your health is an ideal standard. Science is an ideal standard. Wealth is an ideal standard. Etc. Your decisions are influenced by these standards. You see whether some action aligns with these standards and if they align then you will choose it. Animals cannot do this because they have no conceptual knowledge of standards like health, science and wealth.

Base hunger, that's about it. Always interested in increasing awareness if possible. Though consciousness would be the real trick.

Currently getting some long term camping kit together for a trip to Norway. Tend to not like people in general. Staying in a Salvation Army shelter, that's pretty base... Still got some Kroner left from last time I was in Norway. I think many are High in conscientiousness, which I'm not, though they are more individualistic for the most part, might be because the Black Death would have tended to wipe out the less conscientious, which from reading some history a while a go hit Norway hard.  My surname means the "bay with soil" in Norwegian. Anyway in terms of temperment, fairly close, apart from the low conscientiousness. Probably wander around for a bit, staying power would be useful.

[neeeel]

On 4/18/2018 at 3:02 PM, Boss said:

To me, free will is as true as the question of free will. For free will is what ask and answer such thing. 

And what is the answer to the question "what ask and answer such thing"?

[Boss]

9 hours ago, neeeel said:

And what is the answer to the question "what ask and answer such thing"?

That was not a question. Free will is the ability or vehicle that drives asking and answering questions.

[smarterthanone]

On 4/19/2018 at 1:36 AM, Boss said:

Meanwhile, free will is testable and provable. like you and I can decide to reply or not to reply to this post. And someone like Sam Harris or whoever, calling this ability to choose between different possible courses as an illusion, is an unproven claim.

The reasons nobody is really on board with determinism is that many of you don't understand the argument for determinism. The example of you can decide to reply or not reply to this post is not a test for determinism at all, has nothing to do with it actually.

A test for determinism might be more like, Drug A causes a person to experience extreme hunger, specifically for pepperoni pizza. So we can place 1000 people in a room with a pepperoni pizza, one at a time, some who are not hungry, and some who don't like pepperoni pizza and other variations. We inject them all and they all eat the pepperoni pizza. This is evidence that their behavior is primarily controlled by feeling of hunger which is provided by the external stimulus of the drug A. Drug A literally causes them to eat the pizza. Now of course if you tell them in advance dont eat the pizza (will power) some may not eat the pizza. But that still is not free will as I would hypothesize you will find those that are extra sensitive to Drug A will never not eat the pizza. And those with backgrounds that did not develop will power will also never not eat the pizza.

If this doesn't make sense to you, try to objectify the people more. Like if you put a ball at the top of the hill, it has no choice but to roll down the hill. If you inject a weak willed person with Drug A they have no choice but to eat the pepperoni pizza. The choice is the illusion, each person THINKS they could not eat the pizza if they wanted but none of them will ever not eat the pizza and prove they actually had the choice.

In regards to moral ramifications of this, I don't see any as a practical matter. People like to argue things like "If there is no free will, we ought not lock people up for crimes because they had no choice". Well no. Free will and determinism will both give you the same exact reasons for locking up or otherwise punishing a criminal. If you are a machine that electrocutes people to death if they come near you, it is your predetermined nature (at least up to this point) to behave that way. A machine like this should be kept away from people. If you are a person who tends to kill people who get in your way, it is your nature as well (at least up to this point) to behave this way. A person like this should be kept away from people.

I think one of the biggest issues keeping people from going with determinism is they just cannot objectify people. When I think of a person I think of organic mass. When I think about what a person is that makes them behave in seemingly unique ways (which they don't really) its their Body (ie do they have a full functioning body are they tall/short etc) + Brain makeup (do they have proper serotonin level and other receptors etc) + Memory patterns (what memories do they draw on to influence future behaviors) and you take these three things and see how they interact from external environmental stimulus = determined acts.

[neeeel]

6 hours ago, Boss said:

That was not a question. Free will is the ability or vehicle that drives asking and answering questions.

ah, I see. that doesnt really answer anything though. "what is free will?" "free will is what gives you free will"

[Boss]

1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

A test for determinism might be more like, Drug A causes a person to experience extreme hunger, specifically for pepperoni pizza. So we can place 1000 people in a room with a pepperoni pizza, one at a time, some who are not hungry, and some who don't like pepperoni pizza and other variations. We inject them all and they all eat the pepperoni pizza. This is evidence that their behavior is primarily controlled by feeling of hunger which is provided by the external stimulus of the drug A. Drug A literally causes them to eat the pizza. Now of course if you tell them in advance dont eat the pizza (will power) some may not eat the pizza. But that still is not free will as I would hypothesize you will find those that are extra sensitive to Drug A will never not eat the pizza. And those with backgrounds that did not develop will power will also never not eat the pizza.



 

This "test" actually favors free will, not determinism. As it admits some may eat the pizza and some may not. It was not determinable.

But of course, we have an innate genetic quality that drives us. The big three are hunger, thirst, sex. However, it is free will that allows people the choice in how to process these. Like some may look at different diets and choose vegetarian, vegan, keto, etc For sex, some still choose to wait until marriage, enter polygamy or the immoral choice, rape. 
 

 

1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

 If this doesn't make sense to you, try to objectify the people more. Like if you put a ball at the top of the hill, it has no choice but to roll down the hill. If you inject a weak willed person with Drug A they have no choice but to eat the pepperoni pizza. The choice is the illusion, each person THINKS they could not eat the pizza if they wanted but none of them will ever not eat the pizza and prove they actually had the choice.

 

Yes, If someone also pushes me down a hill I will have no choice but to fall down the hill. However, after I get up, I can choose if I want to climb back up the hill or stay down. A ball has no choice or free will to climb back up or not.

But a ball falling is a great example of real determinism, Why? Because it's actually determinable through the law of gravity

I can determine how the ball will fall with this  

The issue with determinist, is they want to take something that hasn't been determinable and claim its determined. They want to claim something to be an illusion, yet, not prove it. Like I can take you to the desert and show you water, then prove it was an illusion or mirage when we get closer. The determinist has no proof its an "illusion" 

This objectively proves determinist are dishonest or speculative at best.

 

20 minutes ago, neeeel said:

ah, I see. that doesnt really answer anything though. "what is free will?" "free will is what gives you free will"

I see Free will as your ability to recognize choices. Like the choice to reply to this or not. 
 

[smarterthanone]

3 minutes ago, Boss said:

This "test" actually favors free will, not determinism. As it admits some may eat the pizza and some may not. It was not determinable.

Straw man. I said they all eat the pizza. That would make it determinable.

But lets go with yours. Even if some did not eat the pizza, all we would do is find out why. So if 5% of people did not eat the pizza and they said it was because they were on a diet then we could determine...

Drug A will cause all people to eat pizza unless they are on a diet.

This would be determinable.

The reason why we like the concept of "free will" is because there are so many different aspects and hard to measure circumstances that go into making a decision that in real life, it appears there is no cause that makes us choose any particular action. When really there are about 10,000 causes that make us choose any particular action.

 

3 minutes ago, Boss said:

Yes, If someone also pushes me down a hill I will have no choice but to fall down the hill. However, after I get up, I can choose if I want to climb back up the hill or stay down. A ball has no choice or free will to climb back up or not.

So if I poison you but put the antidote right in front of you, you have the "choice" to not take the antidote. Unless you prove it, I don't think you have the choice. (No M. Night Shyamalan twists, exactly what I said to the scenario).

 

12 minutes ago, Boss said:

The issue with determinist, is they want to take something that hasn't been determinable and claim its determined.

Determinists don't claim to be capable of determining any outcome for you like a trained monkey performing a trick. SMH.

Determinists claim that with perfect knowledge, one would have the ability to determine any event.

 

12 minutes ago, Boss said:

They want to claim something to be an illusion, yet, not prove it. Like I can take you to the desert and show you water, then prove it was an illusion or mirage when we get closer. The determinist has no proof its an "illusion" 

And where is the proof of free will? It feels like I have it thus free will? Based on what? A feeling? Feelings are not evidence for anything other than feelings. You are also very hung up on the word "illusion". It seems as if we have free will, its not like a magic illusion or a mirage or anything like that.

 

12 minutes ago, Boss said:

This objectively proves determinist are dishonest or speculative at best.

Determinists would be speculative. Uh huh. and....?

 

Try this. Think about what therapists do in psychotherapy and medication. They provide external stimulus in order to change your behaviors in a way such that they determine. Now their knowledge is not perfect, but obviously they can get results or there would be no benefit of ever seeing a therapist for psychotherapy.

Jane resorts to cutting when she gets overwhelmed at work. She cannot control the cutting so she sees a therapist. Jane is a person but she is what I said above (Body + Chemicals + Memory) and when exposed to the stress of her job, she cannot help but to engage in cutting. So a therapist will talk to her in order to change her memory, when she thinks of work she thinks of feelings of stress, he will use cognitive behavioral therapy to change her thoughts to feelings of control and success when she thinks of work. Alternatively, he may prescribe medication to interfere with her normal chemical balance in order to change her behavior. Either way, once it is done, Jane has no choice but to act differently. Will it successfully stop her cutting? Maybe. That is irrelevant because the therapist does not have perfect knowledge, he will never know EXACTLY what to say or prescribe to make the person have a specific outcome but he can make educated guesses based on his experience and skill at identifying the causes of her behavior.

[Boss]

35 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Determinists don't claim to be capable of determining any outcome for you like a trained monkey performing a trick. SMH.

Determinists claim that with perfect knowledge, one would have the ability to determine any event.

Determinists would be speculative. Uh huh. and....?

 

 

Determinist by definition claim that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Obviously, they can't prove it unlike real determinable events like gravity. I am also not expecting perfect knowledge just consistency which "determinist" have a hard time determining as maybe they don't even understand what the word determine means. 

Anyways, glad you see determinist as speculative. ie not determinable

A real determinist would make a fortune determining things while the majority don't believe they can be determined. Just by placing bets on the market. 
 

 

47 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

And where is the proof of free will? It feels like I have it thus free will? Based on what? A feeling? Feelings are not evidence for anything other than feelings. You are also very hung up on the word "illusion". It seems as if we have free will, its not like a magic illusion or a mirage or anything like that.

1

My proof of free will? well, you have been proving it to yourself by choosing to reply to me

Here let's see your free will objectively take place again, choose to reply to me or not. either choice of yours proves it. Have fun with your free will

[RichardY]

What if they do a flip into the air snapping their neck. So the pizza remains uneaten. Or throw the pizza out the window.

"Do NOT eat the PIZZA!
No, I like pizza. - Eats the pizza.

Or if the pizza is laced with poison, so eatting it would be lethal.
Or what if it wasn't pizza, but your own children, would you eat them?
 

------------

I view freewill as a potentiality, not actuality. I guess maxmising it would be the willingness to die for what you value. How to maximise the illusion????? if that is what it is, anyway I choose the funfair or maybe it chooses me....... Musing. 

If they all eat the pizza/children regardless, then there is nothing to be determined. It is a fact. Though would Satan really eat his children? I guess he probably would, maybe I'm mixing him up with the antichrist.

[smarterthanone]

14 minutes ago, Boss said:

A real determinist would make a fortune determining things while the majority don't believe they can be determined. Just by placing bets on the market. 

He's never heard of stock traders? Omg I am dying over here.  "Bets"? lol

 

14 minutes ago, Boss said:

My proof of free will? well, you have been proving it to yourself by choosing to reply to me

Here let's see your free will objectively take place again, choose to reply to me or not. either choice of yours proves it. Have fun with your free will

Nah, no more responses. Repeating yourself just shows you have no additional content to add thus you keep recycling. Bye Felicia.

 

Just now, RichardY said:

What if they do a flip into the air snapping their neck. So the pizza remains uneaten. Or throw the pizza out the window.

"Do NOT eat the PIZZA!
No, I like pizza. - Eats the pizza.

Or if the pizza is laced with poison, so eatting it would be lethal.
Or what if it wasn't pizza, but your own children, would you eat them?

If they do a flip that turns into the laws of gravity and motion and that is already deterministic. So it doesn't really add credibility to free will. It simply adds complexity for complexities sake.

Same with the rest. You are just adding complexity for no reason. You can add all sorts of extra things to it and then it becomes just like real life and it has no purpose of an example anymore. Other than it has become so complex you just cant fathom it being deterministic.

Its essentially an infinite regress. Just keep adding more and more on a never ending cycle.

[smarterthanone]

Do you also think animals have free will?

[RichardY]

19 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

If they do a flip that turns into the laws of gravity and motion and that is already deterministic. So it doesn't really add credibility to free will. It simply adds complexity for complexities sake.

Same with the rest. You are just adding complexity for no reason. You can add all sorts of extra things to it and then it becomes just like real life and it has no purpose of an example anymore. Other than it has become so complex you just cant fathom it being deterministic.

Its essentially an infinite regress. Just keep adding more and more on a never ending cycle.

How is there even a "they" in your scenario? Wouldn't cattle be more accurate. How is it infinite regress? There's only a finite amount of things a person can do that are culturally known.

31 minutes ago, RichardY said:

If they all eat the pizza/children regardless, then there is nothing to be determined. It is a fact.

If you just say it happens, because it happens. The whole thing is tautological. Unless you actually test what you know with Drug A that makes them eat the pizza.

19 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Do you also think animals have free will?

As people are animals, some animals also probably have freewill also though not necessarily on Earth. Although grudged to admit it, freewill the ability to compare to an ideal standard. Trying to figure out other definitions.

[Boss]

27 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

He's never heard of stock traders? Omg I am dying over here.  "Bets"? lol

 

Nah, no more responses. Repeating yourself just shows you have no additional content to add thus you keep recycling. Bye Felicia.

2

I actually trade stocks and only a fool would say they are determinable as a single loss dispells that myth. they are probability and speculation. Unlike actual determinable things like the law of gravity which is 100% as even at 99.999% it will no longer be determinable. just 99.999% probable 

Great, don't address the objectivity just ignore it to prove my case even further. Thanks Felicia. Free will is great isn't it? let's see you use it again when you choose to reply or not

Any animal that can't reason and identify multiple choices do not possess free will. Meanwhile, you will use your free will right now

[RichardY]

@smarterthanone Are you a Psychopath? Not that's necessarily a bad thing. I reckon many highly successful people are psychopaths, at least materially and if there is only determinism what else is there?

I mean Stefan said that some of his family were martial aristocrats, so some psychopathic traits would be an advantage. The movie "They Live!" is probably an analogy for psychopaths.

[smarterthanone]

5 hours ago, RichardY said:

How is there even a "they" in your scenario? Wouldn't cattle be more accurate. How is it infinite regress? There's only a finite amount of things a person can do that are culturally known.  

If you just say it happens, because it happens. The whole thing is tautological. Unless you actually test what you know with Drug A that makes them eat the pizza.

What if people were under attack by a hyena when taking the drug, what if they started on the left side of the room instead of the right, what if they were naked, in a tuxedo? etc etc. there are infinite complexities that can be added forever and ever to achieve such a cloudy example the most intuitive thing is free will. I am trying to get you to imagine more like exact clones, who grew up with the exact same type of experiences. If I can predict them with 100% certainty to eat the pizza if I inject them with drug A, then that is determinism. Period. I can determine it before they do it. Their "free will" is nothing because I can know exactly what they do before they do it.

 

As people are animals, some animals also probably have freewill also though not necessarily on Earth. Although grudged to admit it, freewill the ability to compare to an ideal standard. Trying to figure out other definitions.

Not sure what the bold part means.

 

5 hours ago, Boss said:

I actually trade stocks and only a fool would say they are determinable as a single loss dispells that myth. they are probability and speculation. Unlike actual determinable things like the law of gravity which is 100% as even at 99.999% it will no longer be determinable. just 99.999% probable 

Finally actually something that explains your hang up. I will try again and hope for a response that doesn't just say you posted therefore freewill. Fingers crossed. Probability and speculation have nothing to do with determinism. You are thinking of something 100% different and unrelated. I can prove that just because there is probability and speculation that it is still determined.

Say you speculate that a coin will land heads up. Your friend considers the probability of this and disagrees. HOWEVER, if you flip the coin the exact same way, such that it follows the laws of gravity and such, you can determine what it will land on. (If you don't believe me, try it, its not too difficult if you arent worried about being super obvious about it. Or you can assume a robot flips it.) As humans, we do not however possess that ability to wildly flip a coin and see its mass trajectory etc and calculate it in our head in real time. Speculation/probability only comes from our imperfect knowledge. If you knew the location and speed and mass and everything about the coin, speculate turns to know, probability turns to certainty. Either way, the event was determined, whether you know about it or not. The fact that perfect knowledge is not possible does not change the the fact that the situation is determined, it just changes our perspective on the determined instance. aka "illusion"/seems like of freewill.

In terms of stocks, if you had perfect knowledge, meaning you had a list of every persons trade account balances, plus their reasoning such as, (I want to sell all my KDU @ $10), and you knew all the business practices of each business as if you were God and could see every place at once before the press releases went out, you could absolutely determine what would happen in the stock market. The fact that you dont know this, doesnt make it not determined or even always unknowable by everyone in all circumstances. If I put a ball on a hill it will be determined to roll down whether you know it was at the top of the hill or not. Just because you can't determine its action in advance doesn't mean its destined to roll down the hill.

 

4 hours ago, RichardY said:

@smarterthanone Are you a Psychopath? Not that's necessarily a bad thing. I reckon many highly successful people are psychopaths, at least materially and if there is only determinism what else is there?

I mean Stefan said that some of his family were martial aristocrats, so some psychopathic traits would be an advantage. The movie "They Live!" is probably an analogy for psychopaths.

What does this have to do with anything?

[RichardY]

 

1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

What if people were under attack by a hyena when taking the drug, what if they started on the left side of the room instead of the right, what if they were naked, in a tuxedo? etc etc. there are infinite complexities that can be added forever and ever to achieve such a cloudy example the most intuitive thing is free will. I am trying to get you to imagine more like exact clones, who grew up with the exact same type of experiences. If I can predict them with 100% certainty to eat the pizza if I inject them with drug A, then that is determinism. Period. I can determine it before they do it. Their "free will" is nothing because I can know exactly what they do before they do it.

So, if you feed people into a meat grinder they become mincemeat. Hit a nerve in the knee their foot jerks. Strap them into a chair, drug them and force feed them pizza, they eat it to avoid gagging. If anything they have just been induced into a state of confusion or unconsciousness. A person with a high level of consciousness however would be able to manage that discomfort, like a dancer standing on tip toes.

I am trying to get you to imagine more like exact clones, who grew up with the exact same type of experiences.
You ever see the Resident Evil movies? The whole point of project Alice(a superhuman) in the movies was to create a being with such a high level of consciousness it could do virtually anything, a human was capable of. Despite creating clones none of them were able to match the original. Consciousness being dependent on, but not identical to matter.

So even if you could create a machine that spammed "identical" clones, the consciousness of the clones would not be identical. How could it? How could a clone be able to concieve of an exact same thing, at an exact moment in time. Their location in spacetime would distort their perceptions.

Typo error: meant that there maybe life on other planets with consciousness(freewill). Not the same as being conscious; you know you may one day die, but do you really understand? how much is it embodied?

1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

What does this have to do with anything?

Well if determinism is true, psychopath would probably be, the reasonable mode of being. I mean various things say they are 1% of the population.(the 1%...) Why get annoyed or angry at anything if everything is determined? That would be crazy, if not crazy, primitive. A psychopath would therefore be at the apex of human evolution. Was curious because you did a thread a while a go asking about personality disorders/traits, and relating to the forum.

[Boss]

2 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Finally actually something that explains your hang up. I will try again and hope for a response that doesn't just say you posted therefore freewill. Fingers crossed. 

2

Instead of "fingers crossed" maybe you could provide an argument to disprove it lol instead you are just proving it time and time again everytime you freely choose to reply or not

 

 

2 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

speculate turns to know, probability turns to certainty. Either way, the event was determined, whether you know about it or not. The fact that perfect knowledge is not possible does not change the the fact that the situation is determined, it just changes our perspective on the determined instance. aka "illusion"/seems like of freewill.

 

Probability does not turn to certainty. If it did, then the definition of probability would = certainty and you wouldn't need to use different words. But judging how determinist falsely use the word determinist its no surprise they want to turn words to another word with a different meaning. 

The law of Gravity, as I explained, was always determinable, 1000s years ago, today, 1000s years in the future. It was never probable/speculative. Sure some may have speculated how gravity works but they were incorrect as it has always been determinable through  whether you knew the equation or not.

You see that equation for universal gravitation is called verifiable evidence in regards to determining something. Maybe you should try doing the same before claiming anything as the result of determinism.

I provided real determinism, while the determinist provides no evidence.

determinism exist only if proven determinable, You can't use the word and reject its definition. That's like calling someone a man when it doesn't matter what you call someone, as man has a definition and if whatever you called a man doesn't conform to that, its not a man. Just like how claiming determinism when it wasn't determined wouldn't be determinism, its more like faith or belief that somewhere out there, there is an equation that could have determined it. Luckily I prefer evidence & reason. 

Anyways, you will probably just continue ignoring your lack of such and cross your fingers so I will leave this for anyone else on the fence

humans who can reason and recognize multiple choices are not determinist. As let's say one day there is "evidence", Maybe an AI computer that quantified every gene in your body and everything in your environment to a point it where it "determined" your next move, well, take a look at it, and simply choose to do something else. 
 

[smarterthanone]

2 hours ago, Boss said:

Instead of "fingers crossed" maybe you could provide an argument to disprove it lol instead you are just proving it time and time again everytime you freely choose to reply or not 

 

 

Probability does not turn to certainty. If it did, then the definition of probability would = certainty and you wouldn't need to use different words. But judging how determinist falsely use the word determinist its no surprise they want to turn words to another word with a different meaning. 

The law of Gravity, as I explained, was always determinable, 1000s years ago, today, 1000s years in the future. It was never probable/speculative. Sure some may have speculated how gravity works but they were incorrect as it has always been determinable through  whether you knew the equation or not.

You see that equation for universal gravitation is called verifiable evidence in regards to determining something. Maybe you should try doing the same before claiming anything as the result of determinism.

I provided real determinism, while the determinist provides no evidence.

determinism exist only if proven determinable, You can't use the word and reject its definition. That's like calling someone a man when it doesn't matter what you call someone, as man has a definition and if whatever you called a man doesn't conform to that, its not a man. Just like how claiming determinism when it wasn't determined wouldn't be determinism, its more like faith or belief that somewhere out there, there is an equation that could have determined it. Luckily I prefer evidence & reason. 

Anyways, you will probably just continue ignoring your lack of such and cross your fingers so I will leave this for anyone else on the fence

humans who can reason and recognize multiple choices are not determinist. As let's say one day there is "evidence", Maybe an AI computer that quantified every gene in your body and everything in your environment to a point it where it "determined" your next move, well, take a look at it, and simply choose to do something else. 
 

So before gravity was discovered and when primitive people speculated on things such as will every object I throw off the cliff fall, before it was known, how could you prove the law of gravity without an equation? How could you prove every object would follow the law of gravity? You couldn't. Even though they might not have been sure an apple would fall but maybe a banana would float or a twig would fly, it was always a determined outcome. Ok, but now suddenly someone discovered it and its considered a certainty. You really don't see how the PERSPECTIVE of the people involved would be very very different in an instant where they don't know vs an instant where they do know? Now throwing any object like an apple a rock or a twig would have a determined outcome. But before it was uncertain and speculative. What changed it? The knowledge of the participants.

Was throwing a rock off a cliff a determined event before the understanding of gravity? Yes or no?

So just because there is no formula to predict absolutely any event, doesn't mean its not possible to come up with. But its not necessary to come up with.

If you truly were guessing at the stock market, you wouldn't be likely to make money regularly and it would not be something you could maintain as a job or income. Somehow, you are able to predict how the stock market will react. You do this using pattern recognition which is probably the primary unique feature of your brain. Human pattern recognition is far superior to any computer but it does not translate into math for you, its intuitive. You look at some numbers, you read some press releases, you look at the market as a whole, but then you "feel" what to do. This is how I do my investments, I can't nor do I bother to try and quantify every aspect, its a waste of time. I look at all available info and then I use my instinct. I can't give you the exact formula but I can tell you, my intuition brain function is superior to random chance because Ive always won in an industry that has about a 50% fail rate. If I could not predict, then I would not be successful at it. Just because I don't have a formula that is 100% accurate doesn't mean its impossible to make one, its just super complex. And I do way more analysis than the average joe doing what I do but I often just throw the analysis out because I just KNOW its a good deal. And it always has been.

[smarterthanone]

5 hours ago, RichardY said:

A person with a high level of consciousness however would be able to manage that discomfort, like a dancer standing on tip toes.

Not relevant. Just adds complexity for complexity sake.

If all level of high consciousness people react in X way to Y stimuli then you can predict it.

Neither of you responded to my psychology example. Go re read it. If you couldn't predict human behavior then there would be no such thing as psychology. Absolute perfect prediction is not necessary. The fact that it can better than 50/50 be predicted means there is some aspect that is behaving the same. Just because you (as a caveman) throw a rock and an apple off a cliff and it falls, by throwing a feather, which only floats down, doesn't disprove gravity, just means you don't have perfect knowledge about what is going on.

If I can give people tests and determine who is more likely to commit crimes, I may not know exactly what is causing it, but its some kind of static element that can be recognized, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just don't fully understand it yet.

 

5 hours ago, RichardY said:

You ever see the Resident Evil movies? The whole point of project Alice(a superhuman) in the movies was to create a being with such a high level of consciousness it could do virtually anything, a human was capable of. Despite creating clones none of them were able to match the original. Consciousness being dependent on, but not identical to matter.

So even if you could create a machine that spammed "identical" clones, the consciousness of the clones would not be identical. How could it? How could a clone be able to concieve of an exact same thing, at an exact moment in time. Their location in spacetime would distort their perceptions.

Seems like support of determinism to me. So hypothetically if you had two exact clones in the same space time, would they do the same things or could one do one thing and the other do another?

If you can explain how one would do one thing and the other would do another, I would believe in free will. Evidence such as twin studies says that is unlikely though.

 

5 hours ago, RichardY said:

Well if determinism is true, psychopath would probably be, the reasonable mode of being. I mean various things say they are 1% of the population.(the 1%...) Why get annoyed or angry at anything if everything is determined? That would be crazy, if not crazy, primitive. A psychopath would therefore be at the apex of human evolution. Was curious because you did a thread a while a go asking about personality disorders/traits, and relating to the forum.

Well psychopaths tend to be some of the most successful people across all cultures and time periods, so maybe they are on to something.

[Boss]

1 hour ago, smarterthanone said:

So before gravity was discovered and when primitive people speculated on things such as will every object I throw off the cliff fall, before it was known, how could you prove the law of gravity without an equation? How could you prove every object would follow the law of gravity? You couldn't. Even though they might not have been sure an apple would fall but maybe a banana would float or a twig would fly, it was always a determined outcome. Ok, but now suddenly someone discovered it and its considered a certainty. You really don't see how the PERSPECTIVE of the people involved would be very very different in an instant where they don't know vs an instant where they do know? Now throwing any object like an apple a rock or a twig would have a determined outcome. But before it was uncertain and speculative. What changed it? The knowledge of the participants.

 Was throwing a rock off a cliff a determined event before the understanding of gravity? Yes or no?

 So just because there is no formula to predict absolutely any event, doesn't mean its not possible to come up with. But its not necessary to come up with.

3

 

You can't prove anything without evidence and reason, so yea you can't prove universal gravitation without evidence like the equation for universal gravitation.

Just like how you can't prove determinism without evidence. 

The perspective/understanding of people means nothing. As universal gravitation works with or without their knowledge. In fact, the majority of people still dont know the equation for universal gravitation. Yet it still keeps working. In the stone age, they didn't know about universal gravitation but it still kept working. 

However, the point is if someone wants to claim there is universal gravitation, they need evidence like the equation for universal gravitation. 

Just like if a determinist wants to claim determinism they need to provide evidence. Something you have 0 of. in fact, you are in the negative as you have been instead proving free will through knowing the choice to reply or not, and deciding to reply or not objectivity 

You think "its not necessary to come up with", if you don't think evidence is needed and conjecture is enough, that is your choice. I just hope you and others are able to understand the clear distinction between us and the determinism case which I think you did a great job showing. Thank you 

[RichardY]

On 6/10/2018 at 10:43 AM, smarterthanone said:

Try this. Think about what therapists do in psychotherapy and medication. They provide external stimulus in order to change your behaviors in a way such that they determine. Now their knowledge is not perfect, but obviously they can get results or there would be no benefit of ever seeing a therapist for psychotherapy.

Jane resorts to cutting when she gets overwhelmed at work. She cannot control the cutting so she sees a therapist. Jane is a person but she is what I said above (Body + Chemicals + Memory) and when exposed to the stress of her job, she cannot help but to engage in cutting. So a therapist will talk to her in order to change her memory, when she thinks of work she thinks of feelings of stress, he will use cognitive behavioral therapy to change her thoughts to feelings of control and success when she thinks of work. Alternatively, he may prescribe medication to interfere with her normal chemical balance in order to change her behavior. Either way, once it is done, Jane has no choice but to act differently. Will it successfully stop her cutting? Maybe. That is irrelevant because the therapist does not have perfect knowledge, he will never know EXACTLY what to say or prescribe to make the person have a specific outcome but he can make educated guesses based on his experience and skill at identifying the causes of her behavior.

 

If "they" are determining then that proves the therapist has "freewill". As I've said freewill is an illusion, it would be the same as saying infinity(also an illusion) is real. Though determinism I think is delusional. To even convey determinism to it's rational and reasonable conclusion...., I'm sure most of the language would have to be restructured 1984 style (newspeak). For example, instead of "well" as a statement of indivdualistic good health "goodwise" would be more logical. instead of "Excellent", "goodplus!"

Instead of freedom & sanity,  being the ability to say 2+2=4. "Sanity is statistical." If enough people 99.9999% say 2+2 = 5 then 2+2 = 5............. Maybe the symbols change but the quantity remains the same.... Statistical.

12 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

If I can give people tests and determine who is more likely to commit crimes, I may not know exactly what is causing it, but its some kind of static element that can be recognized, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just don't fully understand it yet.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain & Benjamin Diserali

 There's no difference between a Diagnostic Mechanic and a Psychologist. If the psyche itself is not regarded as real; there is no psyche.

11 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Not relevant. Just adds complexity for complexity sake.

If all level of high consciousness people react in X way to Y stimuli then you can predict it.

I think consciousness is highly revelant. Consciousness is not something you can predict. A person may act conscious as in sleepwalking or after a traumatic accident but in fact not be conscious. A person does not have to be conscious to act, if the already have prior experience of a task. Consciousness would be being perfectly aware you have more than one option on a chess board. Though I'm pretty sure freewill is a 2 player game. There maybe situations where one move makes no more logical sense than another.

11 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Seems like support of determinism to me. So hypothetically if you had two exact clones in the same space time, would they do the same things or could one do one thing and the other do another?

If you can explain how one would do one thing and the other would do another, I would believe in free will. Evidence such as twin studies says that is unlikely though.

My point is they can't exist in the same position in spacetime so something is going to affect their consciousness and if a choice is on a even trigger what makes one option more likely then another. 

I don't think believing in freewill is the right way of looking at it. It would be like saying do you believe in infinity? Equally ridiculous, is I believe in Determinism. There is no I to be determined.

12 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Well psychopaths tend to be some of the most successful people across all cultures and time periods, so maybe they are on to something.

Maybe. I find it interesting though how culture perhaps reflects various personality traits in mythology and movies. I would guess being extroverted, psychopaths would be: the aliens in "they live", Werewolves, Jedi(reflexes, relentless, no self...). Marquis de Sade, Earl of Rocheter, Charles II. I reckon it probably results in civil war if too many psychopaths are in charge.

Contemporary examples probably various politicians. Some people I think try to be more psychopathic but aren't, Sam Harris (Determinist) maybe.

[smarterthanone]

15 hours ago, Boss said:

You can't prove anything without evidence and reason, so yea you can't prove universal gravitation without evidence like the equation for universal gravitation.

Just like how you can't prove determinism without evidence.

The perspective/understanding of people means nothing. As universal gravitation works with or without their knowledge. In fact, the majority of people still dont know the equation for universal gravitation. Yet it still keeps working. In the stone age, they didn't know about universal gravitation but it still kept working. 

However, the point is if someone wants to claim there is universal gravitation, they need evidence like the equation for universal gravitation. 

Just like if a determinist wants to claim determinism they need to provide evidence. Something you have 0 of. in fact, you are in the negative as you have been instead proving free will through knowing the choice to reply or not, and deciding to reply or not objectivity 

You think "its not necessary to come up with", if you don't think evidence is needed and conjecture is enough, that is your choice. I just hope you and others are able to understand the clear distinction between us and the determinism case which I think you did a great job showing. Thank you 

1. So answer my question: Was a rock falling when thrown off a cliff a determined event before the understanding of gravity? Yes or no?

Knowing or not knowing the law of gravity doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by the law of gravity. It does however change the experience and expectations of the person throwing the rock. That is all.

2. You have no proof of free will. I don't see any. Responding to you or any behavior I do is the exact thing that would happen in a deterministic universe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 hours ago, RichardY said:

If "they" are determining then that proves the therapist has "freewill".

1. Adding complexity for complexity sake again. Why not stick with the example instead of immediately trying to make yet another example? Wouldn't a therapist predicting another persons behavior or being able to change their behavior, even if not perfect, provide evidence that a persons behaviors are not necessarily their own but a result of the circumstances of their physical self and their environment?

 

4 hours ago, RichardY said:

My point is they can't exist in the same position in spacetime so something is going to affect their consciousness and if a choice is on a even trigger what makes one option more likely then another. 

2. Irrelevant. This is like Schrodinger's cat, a thought experiment. So IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, what do you reckon the outcome would be and why do you think it?

 

4 hours ago, RichardY said:

Maybe. I find it interesting though how culture perhaps reflects various personality traits in mythology and movies. I would guess being extroverted, psychopaths would be: the aliens in "they live", Werewolves, Jedi(reflexes, relentless, no self...). Marquis de Sade, Earl of Rocheter, Charles II. I reckon it probably results in civil war if too many psychopaths are in charge.

Contemporary examples probably various politicians. Some people I think try to be more psychopathic but aren't, Sam Harris (Determinist) maybe.

3. Psychopaths definitely become politicians at a high rate, I read a study once but don't remember the specifics. But the thing many people don't realize is they just demonize psychopaths. Psychopaths can be very strong, successful and virtuous people. Not just serial killers and things like that. Psychopaths would join any party or any cause if they felt is was the best reward for the effort in terms of achieving whatever power or change they wanted.

[Boss]

5 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

1. So answer my question: Was a rock falling when thrown off a cliff a determined event before the understanding of gravity? Yes or no?

Knowing or not knowing the law of gravity doesn't change the fact the universe is governed by the law of gravity. It does however change the experience and expectations of the person throwing the rock. That is all.

2. You have no proof of free will. I don't see any. Responding to you or any behavior I do is the exact thing that would happen in a deterministic universe.

1

 

Yea I am repeating myself

1. Was gravity like a falling rock a determined event before the understanding? Anyone answering yes must prove it through evidence like the law of gravity 
Is saying you can determine how the rock falls without evidence reasonable? No. As that is LYING as *You* can't determine it. Only someone with proof can say they can determine it. As you need proof for any of Your claim, if you want to be honest that is. You see, you are claiming you can shoot webs out of your body just because a spider can. Just because a spider can it doesn't make your claim true. You still need to prove your claim. which you NEVER did and probably never will since you dont care for evidence 
   
You are claiming determinism without evidence, I am assuming incompetency or just willfully dishonesty 

2. You are the one making the claim and misusing words definitions like "determinism" without evidence of determinism. 

I simply define free will as the ability to recognize choices. And I simply proved that through experimentation by having you reply or not. You have never rebutted it. Just made more unproven claims. 

You can't tell me you can't recognize the choice to reply or not. As #1 you are clearly speaking English so can understand the two choices. #2 will decide right now whether to reply or not. #3 will have no evidence to the contrary, Maybe just unproven claims and misused words like determinism and illusion without actually proving its determined or an illusion. Unlike real determinism or real illusion as I proved with examples in posts above  

Thinking of it, choosing Evidence & reason over No evidence & sophistry is also a choice but if the determinist doesn't think so, then that is one hell of an admission of where the conversation is headed   

 

[RichardY]

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

1. Adding complexity for complexity sake again. Why not stick with the example instead of immediately trying to make yet another example? Wouldn't a therapist predicting another persons behavior or being able to change their behavior, even if not perfect, provide evidence that a persons behaviors are not necessarily their own but a result of the circumstances of their physical self and their environment?.

I'm not making another example. If you're saying the therapist determines, how is that not saying that the therapist has freewill. If in contrast the therapist adivses it presupposes both have freewill. If he "diagnoses" that presupposes determinism and he's no longer a therapist. I was pointing out that the language itself has to be reworded(newspeak) or better attended to, if you presuppose determinism.

 

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

2. Irrelevant. This is like Schrodinger's cat, a thought experiment. So IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, what do you reckon the outcome would be and why do you think it?

It's not possible, for any  person with high consciousness. Essentially it is, collective solipsism.(Double think) Or the Best of Both Worlds. Laying claim to morality for example, whilst rejecting morality through determinism is not logical. (I read your post on the military internship being immoral)  I try to refrain from thinking what the outcome should be, on the grounds of the question itself, being not possible as such, and any answer being fundamentally corrupting. 

 

5 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

3. Psychopaths definitely become politicians at a high rate, I read a study once but don't remember the specifics. But the thing many people don't realize is they just demonize psychopaths. Psychopaths can be very strong, successful and virtuous people. Not just serial killers and things like that. Psychopaths would join any party or any cause if they felt is was the best reward for the effort in terms of achieving whatever power or change they wanted.

Yes I think acting out in the world rather than turning ones libido inward, as such, definitely has its advantages. What's better thinking about the advantages and benefits of going to the gym, or actually go to the gym, get the work done and get results. ABC Always Be Closing. Bit of a moive cliche, but the psychopath always has an excellent physique, usually weight lifts. I reckon being a serial killer as a psychopath would probably be more collateral damage as opposed to the actual intent, even though it might provide amusement.