:chin: While philosophers argue about free will, the legal system and the legislature are busy laying down laws, really restritions on our free will, regulating our options. WTF? — Agent Smith

Individually, the freedom to do as you please is a good idea. But collectively, that would result in chaos and conflict. So, in politics, and in internet interrelationships, some restrictions on freedom are necessary to avoid a bloody free-for-all.

The lone wolf is free to do as he pleases, but in a pack, he is just one willful agent among many. A pack of wolves is successful to the extent that it has a harmonious collective will, typically embodied in the wisdom of an experienced leader. Currently, the internet seems to be leaderless. So, it's every wolf for himself. Which is why each website must make and enforce its own rules for permitted participation in a collective endeavor.

Over time, those local rules seem to be merging toward a general consensus of what behaviors are permitted, and which forbidden, and which violations can be overlooked. That's how a Democracy can function only with a division of powers : law-makers, law enforcers, and a general consensus Constitution -- interpreted by wise elders. So, maybe the World-Wide-Web Democracy needs a high court to resolve internal disputes --- but elected or appointed? Hmmmm?. :chin:


"See everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little."
___Pope John XXIII

Limited Democracy :
definition: a form of government in which the power of the people is limited to the parameters of a constitution.

As long as democracy, capitalism, socialism, fascism are taken to denote abstract ideals nothing will destroy them — neomac

Yes. "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come" ---Victor Hugo. And all of those political ideals have had their "time", but have come and gone, and come again. During the 1950s Red Scare, campaign against communism, presidential candidate Thomas Dewey, responded to the proposal to outlaw Communism with, "you can't shoot an idea with a gun". Consequently, he was labeled as "soft on Communism". Likewise, the original notion of a free exchange of ideas on the Internet was intended to "destroy" censorship, and government regulation. But the necessity for limits on freedom is another idea, whose time is always with us. :meh:

Please help me understand this article. Is it implying that assuming dualism is a possibility that all science must be false in order for that to be the case? — TiredThinker

FWIW, I interpret Dualism, not as Matter & Spirit, but as Physical & Meta-Physical (or Menta-Physical). I make that distinction because the Mental aspects of Reality are emergent & subjective Qualia from the elemental & objective Quanta. Modern Science was deliberately divorced from ancient notions of non-physical essences. But both modern Quantum Theory and Information Theory have revived the necessity for dealing with concepts that are not physical objects, such as "virtual particles" and "memes".

However, I don't view them as fundamentally separate classes of reality. Instead I take a BothAnd perspective, which proposes essential & causal Information (the power to enform) for the fundamental "substance", as proposed by Spinoza and Aristotle, among other philosophers. From that Monistic perspective, I have derived a personal worldview for both Science and Philosophy for the 21st century.

Since, the essential substance of the real world (Information : EnFormAction) is closer to invisible Energy than to tangible Matter, I can make sense of problems inherent to both Dualism and Materialistic Monism. But that worldview is Agnostic about the post-death state of the abstract process we call "Life". We have no evidence upon which to base such speculations, except for unverifiable anecdotal (so you say) reports that can be interpreted in various ways.

Consequently, I think EnFormAction (like Energy) must be eternal. But Life is inherently temporal. Therefore, I'm not counting on a traditional afterlife. But, I can't absolutely rule out some afterdeath continuation of personal data (Information) -- perhaps "virtual" life?? :cool:


Qualia : Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.

↪Gnomon
I really appreciate the information you shared about the Trinity. I would be more interested in attending a church that presents such information instead of lessons for being good children based on fiction instead of math and science. — Athena

Persistent controversies over technicalities of Roman Catholic dogma may be interesting to Theologians and Philosophers, who like to argue over fine distinctions. But to the man or woman on the street, the Trinity concept may be accepted as Gospel, but understood as Metaphor.

As legal terminology, "The Trinity" allowed the church to reconcile incompatible literal meanings (Monotheism vs Polytheism) by the indisputable power of faith in inspired church authority. To say that 3=1 does not compute mathematically. But as a religious notion, it works mystically.

Likewise, in a practical sense, the bread (or host) of the sacrament is just baked dough. But as a mystical symbol it combines the mundane notion of eating bread with the sublime imagery of the apparent physical body on a cross, which is secretly only a vessel (host) for a supernatural spirit. Even philosophers cannot argue with poetic figures of speech. :joke:

PS__I was raised in a back-to-the-Bible fundamentalist church that did not accept add-on Catholic doctrines such as Trinity & Saints & Christmas. Ironically, some of us still celebrated Christmas, as a semi-secular holiday. So, I was always conflicted on that "holy day". With one crucial exception, our teachings were logical and subject to evidence. But the only true source of that evidence was a collection of ancient "scriptures", that were later compiled by the very church whose authority we rejected. :yikes:

. Today's believers have a whole different understanding of God and Satan because the condition of our lives is so different. — Athena

Ironically, the Christian Trinity omits a significant deity from Old Testament : Satan. Originally, he was a heavenly prince, whose job was to serve as legal prosecutor in God's dealings with humans (including the temptation of Jesus in the desert). By contrast, the Holy Spirit was basically a messenger boy, who unlike an Angel, didn't take on human form.

The Roman Christians didn't have a name for the abstract concept of "four" (only a symbol : IV). But they could have used the Greek word "tessera" to describe a four-in-one deity : the Holy Tesseract. The Hindu pantheon included both good and evil gods. For example demonic Kali, who was the 10th avatar of Vishnu. What's the name for a 10-in-one deity? :cool:

But ‘determined’s opposite is an impossible currency. — PoeticUniverse

Fortunately for us humans, Self-Determination is not the "opposite" of Determinism, but a "complement" (complete-ment). The output of a complex system is not the same as the input. The system re-arranges the incoming energy/information into novel forms and meanings. Most important of those novelties is a meaningful relationship to Self (observer). Meaning is not a natural "currency", it is a preter-natural evaluation. Nature is indifferent to me. But my personal meanings & beliefs are the "difference that makes a difference" (i.e. Information). :smile:

PS__Thanks for your challenging responses. They inspire new ways to view stale ideas.

Complement : 1 : something that makes whole or better
i.e. the je ne sais quoi (qualia) that makes a random collection into a functional integrated holistic system

I don't think anyone is saying the sensory inputs make for the whole of the will's analysis. There's lots more going on, plus rumination is a feedback loop. — PoeticUniverse

By "sensory inputs" I was referring to causes or influences from the environment. It was meant to distinguish linear causes from internal processing (ruminations) that form "feedback loops". Those non-linear processes modify the incoming ambient "energy" for the specific needs of the Self. Such internal looping is what I call "multiplying" and "complexifying" of extrinsic Information, to temporarily re-direct the flow for personal use.

That Selfish energy is what we call "Will", which is the motivation to get what we want and need. "Will" being merely the future tense of "Want". So the redirected or recycled Information/Energy is "free" in the sense that it is no longer completely extrinsically determined, but has an added Selfish purpose. Ambient Information/Energy has no purpose, but egocentric causation has the novel property of goal-directed Intention.. :smile:

PS__We are still subject to the tidal flow of energy, but unlike an Iceberg, we have an inboard motor to allow us to go against the flow . . . to some degree.

And for whatever it maybe worth people who had NDEs often report a more real reality. Any psychologically people here? Is there a reason why the mind would create such a thing, and how exactly could it? — TiredThinker

Yes. Brains on hallucinogenic drugs create imaginary realities that seem more real than mundane materiality. The "could" is easy to answer : the brain produces it's own chemicals to adjust its reactions to perceptions (e.g. endorphins ; opioids). But the street drugs merely exaggerate those normal effects. Sometimes the distorted feelings may feel heavenly, but they may also seem hellish . Take the drug, take your chances.

As, to "why" the brain would release abnormal amounts of those intrinsic neurotransmitters, when it detects signs (stress hormones??) of impending death, many NDE researchers are still looking for the answer. But most assume that it may have some last-ditch self-protection purpose. Why does consciousness black-out when you get hit on the head? Perhaps that allows you to roll with the punch. I don't know. :cool:

Hallucinogens are a diverse group of drugs that alter a person’s awareness of their surroundings as well as their own thoughts and feelings. They are commonly split into two categories: classic hallucinogens (such as LSD) and dissociative drugs (such as PCP). Both types of hallucinogens can cause hallucinations, or sensations and images that seem real though they are not.
Note -- drug addicts and NDE survivors typically wake-up to the same old sh*tty reality as before.But if the effect makes a deep impression, it may lead to changes in lifestyle. Maybe to quit sinning, or to get off the drug.

On this basis it is reasonable to conclude that "what we normally see" is more useful for reasoning about the true nature of reality than what we see on drugs.
https://www.quora.com/If-drugs-can-alter-the-way-we-perceive-reality-how-can-we-be-sure-that-what-we-normally-see-is-the-absolute-reality

Illusion. "More than" hasn't been found. — PoeticUniverse

In my blog, I hypothesize that the "more than" is a holistic effect of causal feedback loops, and the consequent complexification-of-causation. The result of that multiplication is a holistic Cybernetic system, that is more than the sum of sensory inputs. Such a complex integrated system may have novel properties (e.g. awareness) that are not found in its parts (e.g. neurons). Those internal loops in the chain of causation, might even permit Self-Causation (autonomy, freedom).

If so, the Feeling of Freedom is not an external illusion, but an internal belief -- that's just as real as your mental model of the real world. Of course, this is a conjecture based on implications of a few brain studies. And, since the feeling is subjective, there is no objective proof that it is anything more than an illusion. So, it's true that the "more than" has not been found . . . by those looking at neuronal wiring diagrams.

However, there's also no way to empirically prove that you are Conscious, except to ask you to affirm your awareness. Likewise, if you believe you are free, you will act as-if you are in control. So, as street philosopher Dirty Harry so perceptively inquired, "you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky free? Well, do ya, punk?". :grimace:

Cybernetic System :
Cybernetics is the study of control, communications and information processing within systems of all kind, biological, mechanical and social. Norbert Wiener(one of the founders of the subject) defined cybernetics as “the scientific study of control and communication in the animal and the machine.”[1] The word cybernetics comes from Greek word meaning “governance” or “to steer, navigate or govern”. Cybernetics formed out of – and is closely related to – the areas of systems theory, information theory, computer science, robotics, mechanical and electrical engineering. The primary object of study within cybernetics are control systems that are regulated by negative feedback loops.[2]
https://www.systemsinnovation.io/post/cybernetics
Note -- Feedback loops are used in Robotics to allow for Self-Control. So, wouldn't feedback in a human mind allow for intrinsic Self-Governance, without the necessity for extrinsic control inputs? A cybernetic organism is not free from physical laws, but from external mind-control (unless brain-washed, of course).

Feedback Loops :
The human brain is a negative feedback loop system. This means that whenever there is a difference between what a person experiences in reality that is different from the ideal set point established by this person’s brain, an urge to behave to correct the situation is created by the brain. https://www.funderstanding.com/brain/brain-biology-a-negative-feedback-loop-system/ [my bold]

Every Effect has a Cause, but not all causes come from the environment. When faced with an incongruency, humans are able to "leap" to a conclusion that seems reasonable, in light of our prior beliefs of what ought to be true. So, what seems reasonable is not just pure Logic, but can also be determined by any prejudices, premises, and presumptions in our belief system. Those inner beliefs are not in any sense physical objects. Instead, they are meta-physical causes of our mental behavior. You might say that beliefs are indirect motives of behavior (emotions, feelings), because they result from feedback loops in the chain of incoming information. Those information loops add to the complexity of a simple linear cause & effect system. But out of the apparent chaos comes the novel (butterfly) effect that we call "Free Will". The proof of the freewill pudding is in the effects of your voluntary actions. :nerd:

I've always felt in charge, and that seems to have added to the pleasure. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but is that feeling of being in control of your life a truism or an illusion? That is the underlying question of this thread. The arguments typically come down to siding with Science or Religion. And most world religions, especially Christianity, make human Free Will mandatory, to govern a God who holds us responsible for our ethical behavior. Since, modern Science has demoted Freedom of Will to a "persistent illusion", it would seem that morality is optional. Unless, they can find a viable substitute for an intrinsic feeling of responsibility.

Secular Humanism has rejected the universal lawmaker, and placed the burden of maintaining order -- among people who feel free to sin -- on mundane, politically divided Society. Which typically relies on fear of temporary incarceration instead of eternal incineration. Therefore, it seems that even without an all-seeing eye-in-the-sky, our sense of freedom must still be constrained by extrinsic rules, and menacing threats. So, is man-made morality more Just than just fear of divine retribution? And is Free Will compatible with the restraints of social responsibility? :cool:

"The idea of free will, the skeptics say, is a holdover from a naïve worldview that has been refuted by science, just as ghosts and spirits have been refuted."
https://bostonreview.net/articles/christian-list-has-science-refuted-free-will/

"if you are in charge, you have control over someone or something and are responsible for them."
https://www.macmillandictionary.com

"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." ___Francis Crick,
Note -- if Free Will is innate, what is the "more than" which makes a mere network of neurons to be free from the Determinism of Causation? Perhaps, rational moral agents have become a Cause unto themselves, resulting in the freedom of Self-determinism. :chin:

Interesting but what about memory impairment associated with depression and trauma. These have been documented or so I'm told. Funnily, this doesn't seem to happen with emotions at the other extreme (euphoria, ecstacy) or does it? — Agent Smith

I haven't made a study of memory enhancement and impairment. But my general impression is that depression is associated with hormone imbalance, causing overall mood level to go downward from the baseline. That would also tend to diminish the "fixing" of memories. And presumably euphoria would do just the opposite --- up to a point of diminishing returns. If you are interested, you might Google "bipolar studies memory", to see if remembrance matches the mood swings. It's possible that too much of a hormone could be as bad for memory establishment as too little. :sad:

"Studies report that some people with bipolar disorder have complained of memory impairment during high moods, low moods, and at times in between."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/314328

So, we've arrived at an apophatic understanding - thoughts are not necessarily about logical connections! Now what? — Agent Smith

Like dogs, associations with taste & smell may help humans to embed memories. But, for optimum memorizing, we should aim for the sweet spot between the extremes of emotion. Unfortunately my typical bland mid-range mood doesn't seem to result in a good memory. So, I guess my baseline is already on the low end. :smile:

What you find most interesting is what you will mostly remember.



“But when from a long-distant past nothing subsists, after the people are dead, after the things are broken and scattered, taste and smell alone, more fragile but more enduring, more unsubstantial, more persistent, more faithful, remain poised a long time, like souls, remembering, waiting, hoping, amid the ruins of all the rest; and bear unflinchingly, in the tiny and almost impalpable drop of their essence, the vast structure of recollection. And as soon as”
― Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past: Swann's Way & Within a Budding Grove: 1

Be here now: One must become the change one seeks. — 180 Proof

Yes, but Ghandi was more motivated to extend his reach to his whole nation. And it worked! But, was that change of direction due to his Free Will choices, or to the accidents of Fate? Obviously those who stick their necks out are highly motivated to change, not just themselves, but their recalcitrant world.

As a fated intovert, I lack such deep feeling and passionate drive. So, I'm more content to just "be here now", and to reach-out and touch only those within arm's reach. That's why I post on safe forums instead of marching in the streets. :smile:

Given the current state of humanity's failure to effectively remediate anthropogenic climate change, we can't even "terra-form" Earth ... I'm less "confident", Gnomon, — 180 Proof

I'm not supremely confident. But I'm also not discouraged by the doom & gloom of modern media gossip. Instead, I am encouraged by the incremental progressive steps that are often overlooked by the "nattering nabobs of negativity". (pace Spiro Agnew)

One minor example is Elon Musk's entrepreneurial optimism to put the idealistic Green Movement into practice -- on Earth with zero-carbon cars, and perhaps someday on Mars with recyclable rockets. He has made environmentalism profitable and newsworthy, by building on the more modest efforts of tree-huggers.

Just as Ghandi's humble persistence had an impact on colonialism and minority politics, there are always a few sanguine heroes to push the world forward and upward. Sadly, many of those leaders pay for their pushiness with their lives. Inertia is inherent in the world, but Impetus is also. :cool:

3. Emotional connections (Off the top of my head). — Agent Smith

Yes. We like to think that our thought processes are rigidly rational, but as Hume noted, more often than not, our reasoning is in service of our "passions". Typically, the link between a fact and its meaning is it's emotional significance. That's because memories are more likely to be stored in the brain when synapses are "influenced" by emotions. Events that arouse no emotions are quickly forgotten. Apparently, the neurotransmitters and hormones react to potential positive or negative effects on Me. Opportunities for sex or harm, are more likely to make an impression on memory, and subsequent thoughts, than irrelevant abstractions. So, my answer is no --- it is not only logical connections between ideas that reveal truth/sense/reality. Any more questions? :smile:

This review describes the evidence of modulation of memory and synaptic plasticity produced by emotional arousal, stress hormones, and . . .
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652299/

Cite the offense I've given. I'm sure you've misread me again, Gnomon. — 180 Proof

I don't remember. Apparently, you've mis-read me. I don't take offense at the occasional "pissy" attitudes on this forum. I just can't take philosophical speculations into the unknown that seriously. It should be a fun tug-of-war without the warlike grimness. But, I'm aware that some posters are more rigid & fragile than me, so I use smilies and emoticons liberally, to indicate that I mean no harm, and in many cases I'm just kidding. Seriously! :joke:


Pissy : arrogantly argumentative.

I turned 74 today and have had good luck so far; the world can't seem to kill me off, — PoeticUniverse

Like you, I'm a seventh decade survivor of a world that has a million ways to kill you. I even lived through 4 years in and around VietNam. So, instead of feeling picked-on by Fate, I feel blessed by the freedom to choose my poison --- a very slow one. :wink:

Sabine Hossenfelder has been espousing Super Determinism of late, if you want to look into it, and so here we are, between its specter and the escape as the randomness option, of all the binds and rocks and hard places to be in… — PoeticUniverse

Thanks, but I'd rather not stare into the abyss of Deep Determinism. Anyway, I don't depend on erratic randomness to spring me from the inevitability of Cause & Effect. Instead, I'm always on the lookout for those tiny cracks in my dungeon that give me an opportunity to choose to use a spoon to widen them into an escape hole --- or rabbit hole (look before you leap!). Since those openings are rare, we must be ready to take advantage of every break from Fate we can get. :grimace:
Note : I googled SD, and saw that it's over my pointy little head.

Back on the topic of Free Choice -- Free Will :
I'm currently reading a novel, Ken Follett's Third Twin, that involves scientists doing twin studies to determine how much Genetics and Society (Nature & Nurture) are responsible for our personal behavior. I'm guessing that they will eventually get around to discovering how unpredictable personality quirks can emerge from those more mechanistic influences. Some identical twins display unique traits that can't be explained by genetic determinism. Could it be . . . oh I don't know . . . maybe . . . Free Will? :smile:

"Although the case for free will cannot be rigorously proven, those of us who believe in it need feel no threat from the findings of the Human Genome Initiative."
https://counterbalance.org/genetics/myth-body.html

Twins: similar and unique? :
https://www.leidenpsychologyblog.nl/articles/twins-similar-and-unique

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 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:

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

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:

Agency :
The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

We see that 'random' harms the will if it messes up the path the will was taking. — 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:

“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. . . ." ___Yehya
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

The deeper the fixation, the harder it is to learn or get deprogrammed. — 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:

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

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:

"Although the intuition that our mind chooses its actions 'at will' begs for an explanation, quantum physics is no solution" ___Stanislas Dehaene

"He who says all things happen of necessity cannot criticize another who says that not all things happen of necessity. For he has to admit that the assertion also happens of necessity."
___Epicurus

PS___ Since Consciousness and WillPower are subjective, ultimately what counts is not objective evidence, but that you feel free. If not, your outlook may be clouded by the bitterness of desires frustrated by Fate. If, however, you don't feel free, then no evidence or argument will convince you otherwise. So, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood : "do you feel free, punk?" :joke:

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

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 :

A more "nescient" sentiment – which, being a child of this zeitgeist, I also can't shake-off – has never been expressed — 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:

"The examined life", thereby, consists in reasoning to better, more probitive, questions about 'proximate concerns' in the context – framework – of reasoning to better, more probitive, questions about 'ultimate concerns', and, IMO, by reflectively living, the Understanding (re: lucidity which regulates judgment and conduct) – in contrast to Knowledge (i.e. 'good explanations' for matters of fact) – flourishes, or gradually is optimized. — 180 Proof

This notion raises the old contentious existential question of Free Will. If "the examined life" looks both within (reflectively) and without (objectively), as navel-gazing philosophers, should we be content to merely "optimize" our personal worldview (facticity??). Or as enlightened examiners, are we morally compelled to attempt to "optimize" the world around us?

As an introvert (by fate, not choice), I am not motivated to "tilt at windmills" or to devote my life to changing the course of the whole world. But I do feel obligated to improve the tiny part of the world that is within my reach. And my examination reveals that I am not alone in that notion of limited optimization. So I feel confident that, over time, humanity will make the world a better place --- even if we have to terra-form Mars to do it. :cool:

Facticity :
"Facticity plays a key part in Quentin Meillassoux's philosophical project to challenge the thought-world relationship of correlationism. Meillassoux defines it as “the absence of reason for any reality"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facticity

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
___Karl Marx -- after examining the bleak lives of working class Europeans
Note -- although his ambitious project has failed to create a proletarian utopia in our time, it has dramatically changed the general attitude toward heredity & hierarchy, and of meekly accepting the status quo of the lower classes. Along with Democracy, Socialism has upgraded the lives of peons and peasants around the world. Of course, major social evolution take mucho time. So, as experience has demonstrated, Utopia can't be built in a day, and one pyramid took 20,000 men a lifetime. :confused:

I've no idea what orifice you've pulled this bon mot out of but it seems like a projection. — 180 Proof

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:
PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? Are you accusing me of projecting my own blindness onto you? "Let he who is without ignorance cast the first bon mot" :joke:

The so-called "choice of red pill or blue pill" doesn't apply to intrinsic ignorance. — 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.

Whatever lies beyond the limited scope of the human mind may be "Intrinsic Ignorance", and some may choose to remain mired in "willful ignorance", but those of us on this forum are blessed with the innate human power of Reason : the power to choose the path to Enlightenment, either within or without. :nerd:

TURN TOWARD THE LIGHT AND THE SHADOW IS BEHIND YOU

The fixed will chooses all the time; it's mostly about providing for future. — PoeticUniverse

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?

"Will" is an expression of future tense, so it implies some ability to choose between one apparent path and another. I say "apparent" because our conjectures into a time not-yet present are speculations, not confirmed facts. Most animals have some power to anticipate the short-term future, and to the agency to change their own behavior to intersect with the preferred option. But human Will Power is enhanced by our ability to speculate farther and more accurately into the potential future.

When you scan a restaurant menu, do you just accept Fate, and point at random --- or do you pretend to choose on a whim, rather than compulsion? In my case, at first I sample a variety of options, then decide which suits my personal preference, which becomes my default choice. Or am I condemned to eat Tako (octopus sushi) forever, even though the smell nauseates me? :yum:

We see that 'random' doesn't make for free will. — 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:

Freedom Within Randomness :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvHiee7gs9Y

Regular Order within Random Chaos :
Admittedly, our home world is rather “messy” in some ways, but I prefer to think of it more positively as “order out of chaos”. The chaotic part of reality is what scientists know as Randomness. The orderly part is known by religious people as Design. Put them together, and you get a world with enough order to produce living creatures, and to be understandable to their minds.

Intentional versus Involuntary :
In human cultures, we can easily distinguish the works of Nature from the products of human intention. That's because Nature is on auto-pilot, while humans have hands on the wheel
. . . . The process of evolution can be construed as an ongoing reckoning of Cause & Effect events. Another way to put it is to say that Natural Selection is the product of freedom-of-action (randomness) and constraints-on-action (selection).

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 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:

Free Will within Determinism :
“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. . . ." ___Yehya
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

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

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:

Rational behavior refers to a decision-making process that is based on making choices that result in the optimal level of benefit or utility for an individual.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rational-behavior.asp

"What a strange suggestion, to deny the existence of freewill . . . I have no proof that you have free will, and you will never be able to show otherwise . . . Without free will, there could be no rational thought. As a consequence, it is quite impossible for science and philosophy to deny free will."
Quantum Chance : Nonlocality, Teleportation and Other Quantum Marvels by Nicolas Gisin
Note -- you can't prove FreeWill, because by definition it can't be replicated.

"The red pill" (choice) is an – perhaps the – illusion, and from this, we can infer reality (à la causality). — 180 Proof

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.

To me the sensei's maxim simply means that, however much we change ourselves, we do not changed anything else. — 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.

Privileged Frame of Reference :
The observer's privileged perspective is due to the freedom to aim as you will
http://www.faithfulscience.com/relativity/privileged-frame-of-reference.html

No. There is no "non-choice", Gnomon. Choosing "the red pill" just makes no difference with regard to reality. — 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?

I like to refer to Roman poet Lucretius' notion of a "swerve" (course change) to illustrate how I view a modicum of Free Will within a general context of Determinism. I can't change Reality, but I can change how I view the world, and how I adapt my behavior (swerve) to Reality. When I'm driving, I can't move that obstacle in the road, but I am free to swerve and miss it. Fight Fate! :starstruck:

"if the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect --- what is the source of free will possessed by living things . . .?" Lucretius (c, 99-- 55 BC) On the Nature of Things.

FREELY FRAMED PERSPECTIVE

The will itself excercises "free won't" just like any other decision/choice analysis that it performs. — PoeticUniverse

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:

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. :joke:

I am looking for people who are specifically feeling the need for “end-time philosophies” — Joshua Jones

I don't personally feel a visceral need for pessimism-confirming doomsday, or dystopian post-apocalytic, scenarios. We get enough of that in popular media. Yet the purported cause of our collective demise varies --- from nuclear winter, to proliferating zombies, to alien invasions, to environmental collapse, to who knows what --- depending on the personal demons of each prophet of doom. But, I've lived long enough to see the world go through devastating downs and then come back up --- as predicted by the Hegelian theory of History. I was born at the end of the world-wide war after the "war to end all wars" (now known as WWI). Yet, everything was coming-up roses in the post-war years. The US was on top of the world, the economy had recovered from my parent's pre-war Great Depression -- in which psychological depression was rampant -- and the environment seemed as sunny as an ear-to-ear smile.

But then, when I was in grammar school, children were taught to duck & cover, when they were warned of a nuclear attack. But, as children do, we soon noticed that the prophesied bombs never fell. Apparently, because selfish leaders learned to compromise on a middle ground : "mutually assured destruction (MAD)". So we learned to "relax and love the bomb". But, then came Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which alerted us to wake-up & smell the smog. and hear the absence of chattering birds. Yet again, humanity began to change its dangerous downward course, although the averting swerve has taken generations to respond to steering wheel inputs. Technological progress is fast, but Cultural evolution is gradual : incremental changes in each generation.

Since those early days, I've been through two economic Recessions (one ironically labeled "Great"), four more post-great-wars, each less "great" than the one before, and a series of escalating cries of environmental "wolf". I even survived the Y2K techno-lypse, and the 2012 Mayan calendar finale. But life goes on . . . So, I've learned not to awfulize the ups & downs of world events. After all, we still have feathered dinosaurs for dinner, eons after the "great" extinction. Somehow, the story continues, even though the "end times" and "latter days" are always upon the current generation. Therefore, even though I am in my own "latter days", I take heart from Steven Pinkers' well-researched assessment of humanity's rational ability to learn from its predecessor's irrational mistakes. Therefore, I intend to keep-on chopping philosophical wood until my choppin' days are done. :cool:

PS___Sorry, was that off-topic?

To paraphrase an old Zen proverb :
"Before enlightenment (apocalypse), chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment (apocalypse), chop wood, carry water"
.
An Assyrian clay tablet dating to around 2800 B.C. bears the inscription :
“Our Earth is degenerate in these later days; there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching.”
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/10/22/world-end/

Lament for Ur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lament_for_Ur

The Better Angels of Our Nature :
"Believe it or not, today we may be living in the most peaceful moment in our species' existence."
"Exploding myths about humankind's inherent violence and the curse of modernity,"
___Stephen Pinker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

I took "the red pill" and with formerly blind eyes I clearly saw that "There Is No Red Pill". — 180 Proof

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:

The terms "red pill" and "blue pill" refer to a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

"Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others' motives."
If you distrust the one offering a "red pill", you by dereliction of choice, choose the pill-not-taken. :joke:

What if one cannot learn because the will has become much too fixated? Doom. — PoeticUniverse

Ouch! That sounds like cynical Fatalism. Whatever happened to the romantic Fatalism of the Greeks? :gasp:

I read your article. So Jews would say the Trinity was pagan and although there is 3 in God there is not three persons? Is this how modern Jews see it? — Gregory

I don't have enough personal experience with Jewish theology to answer that. But it's clear that Orthodox Jews and Muslims are dogmatically opposed to any partition of their Atomic (indivisible) God. My general impression is that Jesus was a Jewish mono-theist. But some of his non-Jewish followers wanted to deify Jesus as the super-natural risen-from-the-dead Christ, just as some early Buddhist sects began to deify him, after his very human death.

Although Jesus and Siddhartha never claimed divinity directly, "great men" have often been deified, in retrospect, by their disciples. They found easy acceptance of such notions, because they were surrounded by Polytheists, who found it intuitive to envision their gods in human form. It's fairly common in history for human heroes to be regarded, by sycophantic acolytes, as either embodied gods themselves, or sent by the gods to save their suffering people. Even the pre-monotheism (pagan) Hebrews seemed to view their savior Moses as god-like. Actually, only after the return from Babylonian captivity, did the remnant of Jews become fervently monotheistic. :pray:


Monotheism vs Trinitarianism :
Serious critics of trinitarian doctrines are nearly always fellow Abrahamic monotheists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/judaic-islamic-trinity.html

The Apotheosis of Washington :
Name of a painting in the rotunda of the capital building.
"The Apotheosis of Washington depicts George Washington sitting amongst the heavens in an exalted manner, or in literary terms, ascending and becoming a god (apotheosis)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apotheosis_of_Washington

the idolization of Moses :
God says to Moses, “see, I make you as God to Pharaoh,”
https://newpolity.com/blog/moses-and-the-battle-not-to-be-god

WASHINGTON ELECTED TO GODHOOD

Another point to recall is that there are threefolds in many different religious traditions. — Wayfarer

Yes. Trinity seems to be a common mystical metaphor for unity within multiplicity. But, I prefer the concept of Unity as Holism. :smile:

How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity :
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/how-ancient-trinitarian-gods-influenced-adoption-of-the-trinity

Jewish Numerology (Gematria) :
In their eyes the number 3 was considered as the perfect number, the number of harmony, wisdom and understanding. ... It was also the number of time – past, present, future; birth, life, death; beginning, middle, end – it was the number of the divine
https://wno.org.uk/news/three-is-the-magic-number

Free won't decisions aren't free of the will either. No decisions are made in consciousness; consciousness reflects the brain product that has already finished and took time, plus even more time has passed while the representation in consciousness was being built and woven into the flow. — PoeticUniverse

So, you are a Drone controlled by Fate, or a Cyborg doing the Will of the hive? And your Artistry and Poetry are done un-consciously by an AI program. All this time I thought you were a regular guy. :joke:

5. How appealing is being semi-autonomous? We have free will but only in a limited sense. — Agent Smith

Yes. I call it "FreeWill within Determinism".

Free Will versus Free Won't :
Since the question of conscious choice is integral to the notion of morality, Shermer asks if we are indeed free to choose our actions. Some secularists claim that human behavior is pre-determined by an unbroken chain of cause & effect stretching back to the Big Bang. Nevertheless, no one actually believes that he is a mindless zombie driven by ancient urges. So, Shermer intoduces the concept of “Free Won't”. In our contingent world, humans are never totally free to make unconstrained moral choices. Only an agent outside of our space-time world would be perfectly free. But a current theory of how the brain works is based on a business corporation. Normally, most decisions are made on lower levels, then relayed to a decider-in-chief at the top, who only exercises veto power to stop processes that are already in motion. This modified determinism model was made necessary by recent experiments indicating that conscious decisions are delayed reactions to subconscious motives. Those computer-like cause & effect processes present go/no-go options for the conscience to allow or deny. That's why human behavior is unpredictable, as compared to natural agents. For us, a fork in the causal path is an opportunity for creative, or moral, action.

Note -- Michael Shermer is editor of SKEPTIC magazine.

Wave-Particle duality — Gnomon
Nor a wavicle, either, but a quantum field. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Physicsts must believe in a non-empirical invisible Field that is the essence of empirical Reality.
Note -- just kidding. Since I believe that invisible Information is the essence of reality, accepting the metaphor of a mathematical field is no problem. But it makes me hungry for breakfast. :joke:

Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. ” ― Lewis Carroll

Oh, I see.[/quote]

It's a miracle! The blind now see. The question remains though : see what?
Did you take the red pill, or the blue? :cool:

So the trinity is the idea that somehow God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate, but one. — Pinprick

That 3-in-1 doctrine was a rationalization of a logical contradiction. It was thought necessary to resolve some arguments among early Christians from different streams of Jewish and Apostolic influence. Some interpreted Father & Son literally, as two beings. But the abstract Jewish doctrine of divine unity (Monotheism) would not allow God to share god-hood with anyone else. Ironically, Yawheh was originally a son of El, in Hebrew theology. So, the Trinity was an attempt to justify Polytheism within the larger context of Monotheism.

And one result of that miraculous conception was to multiply sub-deities in the form of Christian Saints, playing the role of Roman gods. Consequently, Trinity -- like wine as the blood of Christ -- must be accepted metaphorically in one sense, and literally in another. Most people seem to be flexible enough in their beliefs to juggle such counter-intuitive notions, even though they don't really understand them.

Ironically, atheist Physicists must do a similar juggling act with Quantum non-mechanics, such as Wave-Particle duality, and Quarks as 3-in-1 sub-particles, that are never seen separately -- unlike Superman, who is never seen together with Clark Kent. In super-nature, and quantum probability, all things are possible. :razz:

POLYTHEISM BY ANY OTHER NAME WOULD SMELL AS FISHY

Not meta-physical. The will does as it has come to be. Time is fundamental as motion/movement/causality since there was no stillness stopping everything. Consciousness came to be along the way since before life there wasn't any; same with life. The notion of a self is the result of experiencing. No mysteries left. — PoeticUniverse

Again, my coinage of a new spelling for an old concept goes right over the reductive head. Since, by "Meta-Physical" I mean the non-physical (e.g. mental) aspects of reality, I am thinking of changing the spelling to "Menta-Physical", to indicate that I am referring to subjective Ideas, not objective objects, Nor to super-natural spooks. For example, Genes are physical, while Memes are Menta-Physical : physical substrate but mental (imaginary) expression.

That invisible-but-knowable mind-stuff (ideas ; information) was the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume of On Nature. In the first volume, he presented the then-current state of physical science --- as known by direct sensory observation, without modern sense-enhancing technology. And then, in the subsequent (meta-) volume, he discussed the contemporary philosophical opinions about the natural world, which included Ideas, Speculations, Concepts, Theories, and Principles. Those were known only by introspection, or by exchanges of memes (words). Although some of his idealistic notions, such as "Form", were presented as-if realistic, like the Buddha, he was trying to avoid speculating about anything beyond the reach of sensory experience (i.e. super-natural). Yet, he lumped our sixth sense of Reason (nous) and Introspection (mental imagery) under the general heading of "phusis" (nature), which materialistic moderns interpret as "Physics", but not "Psychology".

Human "Will" is completely natural, but it is, by my definition, Menta-Physical. Reductionists typically try to reduce everything to its material substrate. But, that cannot account for Holistic phenomena in human culture. One such immaterial concept is "Health", which is derived from the root for "Wholeness". Another is "diet", which does not refer to any particular food, but to a generalized notion. All philosophical and scientific "Principles" are generalizations, that are never found in Nature, but only in human Culture. Likewise, all universal concepts, such as "the Universe", do not refer to any particular thing, but to a system that we can comprehend only in metaphors and analogies with physical objects.

So, the future-oriented Will is an emergent property of a physical Brain, sophisticated enough to generate a Menta-Physical (nee Meta-Physical) rational Mind. It's not a material object, but a motivating mental concept. And those who can't distinguish the difference, are shooting at a will-o-the-wisp. :joke:

PS___No mysteries? When did you achieve Enlightenment and Omniscience? Should I address you as "Bhodi"? :wink:

PPS___The original Buddha typically avoided speculations about supra-mundane concepts, except such principles as "Nirvana", which could be interpreted as a mundane state-of-mind, not a heavenly realm. Ironically, modern Buddhists do attribute super-natural feats to all bodhisattvas,

The Five Marks of the Mental :
features that set characteristically mental phenomena apart from the characteristically physical phenomena. These five marks (intentionality, consciousness, free will, teleology, and normativity)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01084/full

The Soul as Intellect :
Controversy surrounds almost every aspect of De Anima, not least because in it Aristotle characterizes the active mind—a topic mentioned nowhere else in his entire corpus—as ‘separate and unaffected and unmixed, being in its essence actuality’ (chôristos kai apathês kai amigês, tê(i) ousia(i) energeia; DA iii 5, 430a17–18) and then also as ‘deathless and everlasting’ (athanaton kai aidion; , 430a23). This comes as no small surprise to readers of De Anima, because Aristotle had earlier in the same work treated the mind (nous) as but one faculty (dunamis) of the soul (psuchê), and he had contended that the soul as a whole is not separable from the body \
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/active-mind.html
Note -- In my thesis, the human Mind is also a form of Energy, in the sense of EnFormAction.

MYSTERY IS IN THE MIND
UNCERTAINTY IS IN THE MIND, AND IN PHYSICS

Where did I say anything about "metaphysical determinism"? — Gnomon
Context + this:
"What caused you to become a compatiblist? Did you have the option to reach a different conclusion? Can you trace an unbroken chain of causation beck to the Big Bang? Or was your own reasoning ability a meta-physical Cause of your decision?" — Gnomon — 180 Proof

Oh, I see. You put the apple of a FreeWill vs Determinism context together with the mention of a "meta-physical" orange, and concluded "metaphysical determinism". As a Compatiblist myself, I am not a proponent of that particular line of reasoning (see Fatalism below). Instead, I was suggesting that human Reason could be an emergent "meta-physical" (mental not physical) Cause of forging a new link in the physical chain of Causation. The ability to choose between probabilistic options, is a determinant of the subsequent branch of contingent causation. In other words, Reason is your get-out-of-bondage-to-Fate-free-card.

FreeWill is not an "illusion", it's a worldview. It's a meta-physically (memes, not genes) evolved belief system that allows creatures with reasoning ability to statistically predict the future course of events, and to make rational choices instead of knee-jerk reactions to current events. FreeWill is not self-deception, it's Self Determinism. :nerd:

Note 1. In the blog post prior to the one linked in the OP, I discussed the connection between scientific Reductionism, and the ancient worldview of Fatalism. There, I said :
Another divergence in our philosophy is between Determinism, narrowly defined, and FreeWill, as the ability to choose based on rational evidence rather than on fatalistic necessity. But Determinism is a belief and a premise, not an objective fact. And Determinists typically assume a linear chain of physical causes only. Yet they ignore the influence of feed-back loops in the human mind, which become the non-physical Causes we call "beliefs". The behavior of lower animals might result from external influences only. But the human mind is able to interrupt the flow of physical causation with feedback loops that insert new learning links in the chain (creative ideas). When those new links are perceived as different from our beliefs and preconceptions, the mind begins to look for a way to get back on course. Which is known as "Reasoning".

Note 2. Then, in the following blog post (caused in part by the prior post) I said :
After those scenic side-tracks, he finally gets around to “unpacking free will”. For his analysis, you can read the article. Here, I’ll only mention a couple of points. 1) “Trying to account for choice at the level of neurons . . . wouldn’t provide any causal account”. That would be like looking for Meaning in the circuits of a motherboard. 2) “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”. Finally, he looks at “Freewill as Phenomenal Experience”, and says “Although this naïve view has largely been abandoned by serious thinkers, it can still be useful : what difference does it make if you believe that free will is an illusion? Would you no longer make any choices at all?”. In his considered opinion, “free will is a puzzle but it is not an illusion”. To that, I say “amen”.

In short, fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions.
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/10942/A-Level/Philosophy/What-is-the-difference-between-determinism-and-fatalism/

Risks are problems of contingent causation; they are problems due to unforeseen or uncontrollable causal processes instigated by human action
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40878435

Deterministic – a non-metaphysical concept which compatibilists assume – does not mean what determinists (or indeterminists) mean bymetaphysical determinism. You're confusing apples with oranges again, sir. — 180 Proof

Where did I say anything about "metaphysical determinism"? I had never heard that label until you brought it up. Apparently, you are labeling my apples as oranges. . . . Sir. :joke:


Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, that it is incompatible with free will,
Note -- "Determinism" is metaphysical in the sense that it is a philosophical conceptual construct, not a physical object. FWIW, I accept that the general assumption of an unbroken chain of Cause & Effect is true, and how the real world works. However, from my Enformationism perspective, the self-reflective human mind, with self-generated will-power (intention ; agency), is an emergent Cause, as an added link in the cosmic chain of events and priors. Hence, limited local Free Will is compatible with general universal Determinism. I'll have more to say about that in another post. :smile:

Stuff? They are the only stuff that there is. — PoeticUniverse

Yes! But, unlike material stuff, mathematical "stuff" is a conventional idea, that only mathematicians can fully appreciate. The rest of us just have to take their word for it, that such invisible stuff is out there in the abstraction we call "Aether". But, that's OK. In my personal worldview, mind-stuff is "the only stuff there is". What I'm referring to is "Information". Which, like Energy, is known as a Causal Force only by its Effects on tangible matter. Otherwise, like Aether, it's un-touchable and un-seeable. But, we can imagine it in terms of material metaphors such as the "fabric of space", or as-if it's a "grid of lines" drawn on the surface of a topological warped plane in space..

So, in my view, it's all-information-all-the-time-everywhere. But, like Energy, raw Information can be converted into "material "stuff" that our physical senses can detect. Those us educated in the conventional concepts of modern physics, take those invisible "things" for granted. But a person from the jungles of New Guinea, might think you are talking about ghosts : the invisible & intangible spirits of departed ancestors, who now live in a parallel world. Talk about "primitive" notions! :joke:

PS__Both the primitives and the moderns accept the wisdom of their experts (shaman or scientist) about such unseen "stuff".

Information :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.

Aether is the spacious swarthiness of the skies
Of illusive hopes of finding the illumined providence
Riding on mythologies through the routeless night streams
Marooned man clutching godly stones of earthly dreams . . . .
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/aether/

Volition is, like every other nonlinear dynamic system, deterministic. (Btw, introspection is illusory, and I am a compatibilist.) So what question/s are you trying to raise with the OP? — 180 Proof

What caused you to become a compatiblist? Did you have the option to reach a different conclusion? Can you trace an unbroken chain of causation beck to the Big Bang? Or was your own reasoning ability a meta-physical Cause of your decision? FWIW, I am also a compatiblist. However, if we both have free thought, you may not agree with how I arrived at my summation of the pertinent causes of Freedom Within Determinism.

My FreeWill questions are expressed in the linked blog post. For example : "Is FreeWill Fake Agency?" ; " is it Self-deception or Self-determinism?" Several other questions are addressed by the author of the SKEPTIC article. For instance : " “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”.

A link to the article is in the blog post. For those who may be on the fence, the second page of the blog has links to more detailed discussions of the perennial Free Will vs Determinism controversy. :smile:

Is FreeWill Fake Agency? :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page26.html