Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. — 180 Proof
just not (scientifically) understood as of yet — Agent Smith
Good one! Plus, a first cause wouldn't know anything, given that it has no input. — PoeticUniverse
there is no level of understanding we will ever reach which will allow something to come from nothing. — Miller
Ouch! That sounds like cynical Fatalism. Whatever happened to the romantic Fatalism of the Greeks? :gasp:What if one cannot learn because the will has become much too fixated? Doom. — PoeticUniverse
So you had no choice but to remain in illusory ignorance of reality. The "blue pill" is the default choice to avoid learning the hard truth of Existentialism. However, the "chop wood" quote, from Akira-sensei, sounds existentialist to me. Except that Existentialism requires "an act of will" by a "free and responsible agent". So, I guess the non-choice to remain bound in blindness is actually Cynicism. No? :worry:I took "the red pill" and with formerly blind eyes I clearly saw that "There Is No Red Pill". — 180 Proof
And you're the last word on all such matters. — Agent Smith
no logic is
one plus one will never equal five. it doesnt matter how much time goes by or how much science we do
we already have certain absolute truths that will never be changed — Miller
Ouch! That sounds like cynical Fatalism — Gnomon
Not all anti-vaxxers are Fatalistic. Some exercised their "Free Won't", to rely on God instead of fallible doctors. That's Faith, not Fatalism. OK . . . fatal Faith, if you insist. :joke:They wouldn't get vaccinated and couldn't, so they died from Covid. — PoeticUniverse
Not all anti-vaxxers are Fatalistic. Some exercised their "Free Won't", to rely on God instead of fallible doctors. That's Faith, not Fatalism. OK . . . fatal Faith, if you insist. — Gnomon
Who is this "Will" you speak of? Do I know him? Can I introduce him to my Will? Actually, he calls himself "Me". And his screenname is "Gnomon the gnarly gnome", who sometimes masquerades as the robot "Will Robinson". The fool thinks he's choosing clever bon mots to post on this forum, when he's actually imprisoned in a dungeon of illusion, and has only himself -- his imaginary self -- to talk to. He is only free to won't what he wants, but can't have. He pretends to exercise his freedom as a Fall who chose to gravitate. But, he feels free to post gnarly nonsense on the foolosophy forum. :cool:The will itself excercises "free won't" just like any other decision/choice analysis that it performs. — PoeticUniverse
"The red pill" (choice) is an – perhaps the – illusion, and from this, we can infer reality (à la causality).So you had no choice but to remain in illusory ignorance of reality. — Gnomon
I don't see the connection. To me the sensei's maxim simply means that, however much we change ourselves, we do not changed anything else. Choice itself (pace Kierkegaard & Sartre) is an introspective illusion; actions – consequences – which affect nonselves (i.e. other-than-the-self) are constituent aspects of reality.However, the "chop wood" quote, from Akira-sensei, sounds existentialist to me.
No. There is no "non-choice", Gnomon. Choosing "the red pill" just makes no difference with regard to reality. To think so, to expect some change, Akira suggests, is delusional – or as Socrates might say 'to remain ignorant of one's ignorance'. Reality as such "loves to hide" as Heraclitus (& Heisenberg?) says, so ignorance simpliciter is both fundamental and ineluctable.So, I guess the non-choice to remain bound in blindness is actually Cynicism. No?
Who is this "Will" you speak of? — Gnomon
Yes. That's how Cypher inferred a juicy steak, when he rejected the Hadean underworld of harsh reality to the comforting illusion of normality in the Matrix. "Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth."The red pill" (choice) is an – perhaps the – illusion, and from this, we can infer reality (à la causality). — 180 Proof
That's also how I interpret Existentialism. You can't change how the world works, but you can change your Frame, your perspective. Back when I first heard of the Existentialist philosophy, it sounded sour & pessimistic, compared to my Christian worldview. But now, it seems to be just the other way around. Instead of patiently waiting for salvation in another life, I just try to make the best of the "bird in hand" life. Not by escaping from the chain of cause & effect, but by making free choices for my personal behavior, including attitude adjustment. So, the sensei makes sense to me.To me the sensei's maxim simply means that, however much we change ourselves, we do not changed anything else. — 180 Proof
I agree. But to freely choose the red pill is a decision to change your worldview. That doesn't make any difference in Reality, but it makes a world of difference in Ideality : your mental model of reality. If we had no freedom, there would be no change. But my model of the world is completely different from that of my younger self. Was I fated to make that mental adjustment?No. There is no "non-choice", Gnomon. Choosing "the red pill" just makes no difference with regard to reality. — 180 Proof
My personal worldview is not reality, but a mental model of what's out there. So you could call it "pretense" or "nonsense", but that label will also apply to you. If you are not free to choose between Sense and Nonsense, then how can you think of yourself as Rational? :wink:We could pretend, imitating air-heads,
Posting nonsense on purpose in the threads,
But that then we meant to do this way,
Noting history, too, so ‘random’ holds not its sway. — PoeticUniverse
I agree that most of the argumentation on this forum is futile, because we have two different definitions of Free Will. Some black & white thinkers assume the term refers to absolute god-like freedom, which would allow us to work Magic in the world. But, I can't imagine that many reasonable people could hold such an outlandish view. In my use of the term, FreeWill is limited and constrained by the causal laws of Reality. But I view Rational Choice as a causal link in the chain of Determinism. :smile:I wonder if all those people you are mentioning understand and use the term "free will" in its simple, common meaning leading to the unequivocal existence of free will. I have heard a lot of people denying the existence of "free will" but I still wait for sound arguments that support that position. — Alkis Piskas
I've no idea what orifice you've pulled this bon mot out of but it seems like a projection. Nothing I've said suggests "bliss" of any kind, merely an acknowledgement that ignorance is ineluctable / inexhaustable – a feature of knowing itself (like e.g. Eudoxus' 'method of exhaustion'). It's acquired / habitual ignorance of this intrinsic ignorance (e.g. maps =/= territory) that produces "illusions". At most, "the red pill" only reduces / unlearns habitual ignorance which makes explicit intrinsic ignorance itself (i.e. 'knowing that we don't – can't – know everything', thereby inferring the horizon of 'unknown unknowns'). The so-called "choice of red pill or blue pill" doesn't apply to intrinsic ignorance."Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth. — Gnomon
If you are not free to choose between Sense and Nonsense — Gnomon
What's the difference between "fixed will" and "free will"? Is it totally bound, hence not able to choose at all. or merely limited in the scope of its choices? Is there a way to measure the degree of fixation? Are we like Sisyphus, condemned to rock 'n' roll for ever, but taking some satisfaction that we are playing our pre-defined role in the great scheme of things to the best of our ability? Ironically, king Sisy was like Adam & Eve, punished by the gods for a mutinous attempted act of free choice. Who do you think is punishing us with the desire for freedom without the power to choose?The fixed will chooses all the time; it's mostly about providing for future. — PoeticUniverse
How do we see that? When statisticians calculate a historical trajectory into the future, is that attempt to see a pattern-within-randomness, doomed to failure. Would you call it "absurd" that we can't see very far into the future? Seems to me that's just normal, as in a Normal Curve. However, in a Galton Board model of randomness, even though the Bell Curve is "fixed" the randomized balls are free to fall anywhere within the boundaries of the curve. The balls are rigidly constrained (fixed) by physics , but humans are freedom-loving change-agents, who can choose to bend (not break) the law. :nerd:We see that 'random' doesn't make for free will. — PoeticUniverse
I wasn't trying to put sweet "bon mots" in your mouth (or any other orifice) ; just noting a common saying intended to justify being resigned to remain in a static state of willful ignorance. Are you "woke" to the reality of cognizance? :cool:I've no idea what orifice you've pulled this bon mot out of but it seems like a projection. — 180 Proof
Where you are free to choose to focus your attention on the negative space of "intrinsic ignorance", I opt to aim my frame at the positive potential of self-enformation (selective education). Consequently, I don't think of humanity as benighted by Nescience, but as the beneficiaries of Science.The so-called "choice of red pill or blue pill" doesn't apply to intrinsic ignorance. — 180 Proof
As I quoted you previously,PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? — Gnomon
this is why."Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth. — Gnomon
A more "nescient" sentiment – which, being a child of this zeitgeist, I also can't shake-off – has never been expressed. :point:Consequently, I don't think of humanity as benighted by Nescience, but as the beneficiaries of Science.
Nostalgic but impotent because, except for death, there's No Exit from this Platonic skull-Cave. :fire: :eyes:TURN TOWARD THE LIGHT AND THE SHADOW IS BEHIND YOU
What's the difference between "fixed will" and "free will"? — Gnomon
Is it totally bound…? — Gnomon
Is there a way to measure the degree of fixation? — Gnomon
Who do you think is punishing us with the desire for freedom without the power to choose? — Gnomon
nothing comes from nothing
and nothing comes from something
nothing and something both cannot create something
but something can change into a new shape and make you believe its a new something when its not — Miller
You are quick to take offense at generic statements, and also quick to make specific offensive assertions. But I just shrug-off such accusations as :PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? — Gnomon
As I quoted you previously,
"Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth. — 180 Proof
But that's OK with me, as long as we keep dialoging. I learn from both positive and negative arguments. Obviously, you have given a lot of thought to philosophical questions. But your conclusions seem much gloomier than mine. To each his own . . . :smile:A more "nescient" sentiment – which, being a child of this zeitgeist, I also can't shake-off – has never been expressed — 180 Proof
I get the impression that you are still reacting to a definition of "free will" that I am not espousing. I specifically stated that the "freedom" I'm talking about is "limited". Which, I would think, should fit your definition of "regular" will. Except, there may be some minor distinction that I'm missing. :brow:so this kind of ‘free’ is not adding anything extra to the regular will, since mechanisms like the will are already free to operate. — PoeticUniverse
I'm not familiar with the notion of "fixed" versus "free" willpower. I Googled "fixed will" and got no applicable links. So, I suppose you have your own personal definition of the term. I"d like to hear how you would distinguish between my notion of "limited FreeWill" and your "fixed Will". On the face of it, "fixed" sounds pretty final, and not very desirable. I have been using the common phrase "Free Will" in the usual philosophical sense of Agency as noted below. To me, that definition sounds more like "limited" than "fixed". :chin:Note that this diametric is orthogonal to the other axis—that of a fixed will dependent on what one has become up to the moment versus a non-fixed (free?) will not depending on anything, if one still wants that in order to be ‘free’ (‘twould be a mess—not anything could function). — PoeticUniverse
That may be true, but randomness also breaks the chain of Cause & Effect with an Acausal link. It's that gap in causation that may provide a way to escape from the bonds of Determinism. But, it takes intelligence and reasoning ability to take advantage of the opportunity of arbitrariness in place of necessity. :smile:We see that 'random' harms the will if it messes up the path the will was taking. — PoeticUniverse
By "fixation" are you talking about "self-deception"? If so, I must agree. But philosophically-inclined people should be open to self-examination to weed-out false beliefs. And yet, on this forum, we still find "fixations" that are resistant to criticism. And a common issue raised in Free Will topics concerns whether the freedom of agency is a self-deceptive illusion. But I don't know any sane person who believes he is free to jump off a tall building with impunity. If some do feel that free, they certainly require some "deprogramming". For the record, I'm not talking about such extreme cases, but about examples of "regular will". :wink:The deeper the fixation, the harder it is to learn or get deprogrammed. — PoeticUniverse
I'm not clear on whether you were arguing from a "pro" or "con" position. But FWIW, I don't depend on the weirdness of quantum randomness to open the door to freedom of the Will. The warm, wet brain does not seem amenable to Superposition. On the macro level of human behavior, the quantum randomness averages-out to the familiar Cause & Effect, that we rely on as we make our Choices. It's more telling that our notion of Necessity is a general assumption, not an empirical fact. Even hard-nosed scientists are aware of the vagaries of reality, so they don't assume "Super-Determinism", but merely Mundane Regularity. :cool:As for Super Determinism, this is just determination all the way through, with no 'random'. . . . .2. The quantum particle measurements ending in probabilities may be… — PoeticUniverse
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.