All Activity

The totality of self-experience, all of it, from your earliest moment to your experience of being and choosing in the very moment, all of it amounts to an understanding of your subjective experience and your free will. Some philosophers have said do not trust that existence exists, perhaps it is all illusion, but they fail to see they are asking you to ignore everything you have ever perceived, experienced, felt, indeed everything you know. The answer is to reject such a call to complete and utter ignorance with no evidence forming the basis for such abandonment, as groundlessly silly. Just as denying existence runs contrary to everything you know, so too attempting to deny the introspective truth of free will is an attempt to persuade you to choose not to believe in free will. Such is asking you to evade everything about your life... morality, choice, meaning, without providing any real reason or evidence to do so, simply put we do not understand nearly enough about the universe to come anywhere near proving free will does not exist, and in the absence of said evidence, entertaining such a notion is tantamount to a groundless, baseless abdication of life... all of it. Knowing this full well, how could anyone take such musings, such an invitation to self abdication, self immolation... seriously? As for the unconscious, it seems odd that an unconscious would evolve to create a feeling of free will. Such a mechanism would imply something like an attempt (by the unconscious) to cause the self or consciousness to act or refrain from acting a certain way, but if the self or consciousness was already determined wholly, such an additional urge by feeling... to feel choosy... would be wholly superfluous, and in the end ineffectual. In a predetermined universe the unconscious would not ever need to create a feeling of free will.

That's true; it would not be a proof of the existence of free will. But it is still an argument: the argument from introspection. It is a libertarian argument toward a personal belief in the existence of free will, at least in oneself. You are arguing for the idea that one does not prove free-will ('In essence one does not "prove" free will exists'), and that one has to believe in it if one wants to maximise their potential for meaning, happiness, and attaining values in life. It's a pragmatic argument stating that nothing would be gained from disbelieving in free will. It has no "cash-value," as James would say. '"Free will" defined properly, exists.' That is called the method of the 'persuasive definition.' But I find that such statements as is almost like an attempt to persuade, rather than to define terms. All in all, I find that moving from '"Free will" defined properly, exists' to 'In essence one does not "prove" free will exists' utilizes the strategy of the 'persuasive definition.' I'm not for arguing against free-will. But my counter-argument is that, if free will is an introspective truth, then it is only true for oneself. Question: how does one engage in the search for introspective truth, specifically, free will? And how can one trust the introspective process when there is much unconscious activity going on in the mind that may, perhaps, create only the feeling one has free will?

Man's Craving for Nothingness According to Schopenhauer, pleasure does not come to us originally and of itself; instead, pleasure is only able to exist as a removal of a pre-existing pain or want, while pain (which signals a threat to survival) directly and immediately proclaims itself to our perception. This is mirrored in Objectivist theory: "Pleasure—using the term for a moment to designate any form of enjoyment—is an effect. Its cause is the gaining of a value, whether it be a meal when one is hungry, an invitation to a party, a diamond necklace, or a long-sought promotion at work. The root of values, in turn, is the requirements of survival. Self-preservation, in other words, entails goal-directed action, success at which leads (in conscious organisms) to pleasure." (OPAR, Happiness as the Normal Condition of Man) We could also state this idea as follows: the constant entropic pull, which wants to disintegrate our bodies, is the root of all pleasure. And we certainly like pleasure, so it's no surprise that the most desirable life for us is the one least troubled by debilitating sickness, distracting pain, mental over-strain, hunger, social conflict and the like. Thus, man's deepest desire, his most sought-after jewel, is Invincibility; he wants the ability to act purely for acquiring pleasure (motivation from love), without worrying that, in his pursuit of joy, he might mess something up and bring Nature's wrath upon his head (motivation from pain). To be invincible then, is to be worry-less, like a child that has not yet been acquainted with the realities of life. Like sleeping infants the gods breathe without plan or purpose; the spirit flowers continually within them, chastely cherished, as in a small bud, and their holy eyes look out in still eternal clearness. (Friedrich Hölderlin - Hyperion's Song of Fate) Yet this kind of Invincibility is impossible to man: But to us no resting place is given. As suffering humans we decline and blindly fall from one hour to the next, like water thrown from cliff to cliff, year after year, down into the Unknown. Before he decided that philosophy can't compete with poetry, the celebrated German poet Friedrich Hölderlin studied philosophy at the Tübinger Stift, where he was friends and roommates with two giants of philosophy, Hegel and Schelling. In his philosophical thought, Hölderlin was primarily reacting to the then-trending philosophy of Fichte. According to Fichte, "I act" literally means "I am disrupting the current state", and that current state is obviously inert matter. Regardless of whether Nature truly exists or not, human cognition needs it in order to make possible the consciousness of free agency. Apart from that, Nature has no other value, thought Fichte. Hölderlin was not a fan of this. After all, things like scientific and poetic talent are generously offered by Nature, and are not generated by us ex nihilo. Fichte's theory also worsens the rift between free beings and mechanistic "nature", by turning Nature into a mere instrument for human projects. Furthermore, since: no external inhibition = no possibility of freedom Fichte declared that "freedom from limitations" is an infinite goal of morality, an imaginary ideal we can only approach step by step, with no end in sight. This did not go well with the younger generation, which was just recovering from the failure of the French Revolution to deliver its promised utopia. Riffing on the same theme, Hölderlin held that the human condition is characterized by two opposing drives: 1) the desire to be Myself, as against "That"; 2) the desire to attain "That", precisely because it is separate from Myself, therefore threatening my autonomy and Invincibility As Hölderlin's preference for poetry over philosophy suggests, he locates the resolution of this conflict in the feeling of Beauty. In Aesthetic contemplation, we (spiritually) attain the end-goal of all moral striving, i.e. we feel both infinite and determinate (limited) at the same time. It is different for the real world. Here, "survival" and "life" are synonymous. The day this impossible Indestructibility is achieved is the day where "survival/life" is no longer a thing. Thus, the striving for our most sought-after jewel, for Invincibility, is paradoxically an open striving for destruction. ___ (My source for Hölderlin's metaphysics was Edward Kanterian's excellent recorded lecture delivered at the University of Kent, 23 November 2012.)

Caring for human life includes caring for rationality in human selves, indeed caring of the entire human psyche supporting its rationality. What good would be a person having all she desires but her rational mind? Distinctively moral caring is caring for human selves, notably in the great psyche-constituent and power of rationality—caring in the sense of concern and caring in the sense of tending. The power of human rationality is discovery and utilization of nature, and it is also our fundamental human love, which is an originative, out-springing love for the natural world and, as well, for we humans in nature, for human selves and our attainments. It is the love of creation and production, the love of intelligent conversation and commerce. That rationality is the fundamental human virtue. One failing to have it is in human failure, including moral failure. Fight for human rationality, knowing yours is the battle “for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth.”

"arguing that free will has to exist or there will be consequences" That is not the "argument", and even if it were, it would NOT be any kind of proof of the existence of free will.

Okay, one does not prove that free will exists. However, arguing that free will has to exist or there will be consequences, sounds like a proof. A bad proof, but definitely a proof.

You ask: "Does free will exist, or are our choices predetermined by prior causes?" "Free will" defined properly, exists. Our choices are influenced by prior causes, primarily and importantly the chooser's identity/nature. Rand's philosophy of "being" is wholly predicated upon identity, and as such no action or cause in nature proceeds in contradiction with identity. No thing is supernatural, everything is natural, including people, brains, and yes minds. As a property of mind, one of the things a brain "does", any proper definition of free will must take that (identity, non-contradiction) into account. You are who you are at a time of choice, all your memories and tendencies, your mood, your body, everything is part of your nature/identity of what you exactly are at the time of choice, and one cannot evade these important facts when thinking about free will. Free will and the choice made by it of course depend upon and are influenced by one's identity/nature. If one defines free will as simply (and properly) "one could have chosen otherwise" then that freedom becomes bounded ... the different possible outcomes are specific (otherwise you would not be you... you would be able to be anyone), and moreover, in order to not be deterministic the actual outcome cannot be pre-determinable or even theoretically knowable with certainty. Without fully understanding why or how, identity plus "freedom" to choose, is functionally describable in probabilistic terms... a probability function of all possible choices (which probabilities all add up to 1) describes the outcome of the system. Proof is not necessary to embrace free will. It is an introspective truth. Moreover, it would be pointless to assume free will does not exist... i.e. nothing is gained from it. There are two possibilities, either free will does not exist or it does. (Assuming you choose to ignore introspection) you NOW have a choice to reject or embrace free will. IF free will does not exist, in a very fundamental way whether you "choose" to reject it or not is meaningless, not only is it not up to you in that your choice was not free and was predetermined anyway, in such a universe all choices are morally and existentially inconsequential, we and all things being tinkertoys of mechanistic certainty. IF free will DOES exist, choosing to reject it risks abdication of (or negligence in the use of) your ability to choose in very important and meaningful or otherwise morally and existentially important moments in your life and the lives of those around you, potentially causing suffering when you could have chosen otherwise creating happiness/peace, or pursuing your values etc. and of course IF free will DOES exist and you choose to embrace it, really exercise your ability and responsibility to guide your actions and affect your life and the lives of those around you, then you maximise your potential for meaning, happiness, and attaining your values in life. In essence one does not "prove" free will exists. One understands, accepts, and "proves" it would be utterly pointless (in academic philosophy and in life) to choose to believe and act as though free will does not exist.

For non dual vedanta they are the same.

Occasionally, I run into advice I wish I'd encountered years before, and a Forbes piece titled "5 Ways To Work Effectively With Someone You Really Don't Like" would certainly fit that description. Interestingly for this one, wishing I'd encountered the advice and whether I would have profited much from it at the time are two different matters. For example, as the first person from my lower middle class family to attend college, there was a lot I didn't know about regarding professional norms because, on top of being very introverted, I simply hadn't been exposed very much to those norms: And so it was that when I skipped out on an office appointment with my statistics professor, I had no idea at the moment what he meant when he later sternly told me That's unprofessional! The piece reminds me in several ways of how frustrated I became because of a difficult person way back in my first real job after college. In retrospect, the guy was something of a jerk, but I can also see that I was quite difficult for him to work with, too. So, while I'm not quite ready to forgive that guy, I think it's fair that some of my difficulty with him arose from his own poor handling of his difficulty with me. In any event, the following passage from Item 3, seek learning, provoked that bit of reflection:Image by TheStandingDesk, via SOURCE, license.Another effective way to work with someone you find difficult is to seek to learn from the interactions. Each time you're challenged, reflect on how you could have done better and explore how you might grow your own skills -- in listening, empathy or tolerance. Also reflect on why the person triggers you. Sometimes there is a similarity to your own areas for development -- and what annoys you about them can help highlight ways you can grow. For example, their lack of follow through may drive you crazy, but you realize that you can work on your own responsiveness as well. In addition, consider how you might learn from the way the other person is showing up. If they interrupt you or devalue you, use these behaviors to reinforce the importance of how you positively interact as an alternative. If they take credit for your work, remind yourself of how you want to consistently value other's contributions. Sometimes, learning what not to do is as powerful as seeing what works better.Good stuff, and I'm glad I found it at a time I am better able to take advantage of it. The other four sections are demonstrate respect, maintain perspective, be empathetic, and let go. Life is too short to allow difficult people to ruin your day. Tracy Bower shows how you can greatly reduce this hazard and and turn it into a source of ideas for making yourself stronger all at once. -- CAVLink to Original

Nature doesn't 'have' non contradictory thermodynamics, Science does, Nature supersedes 'our' contradictions all the time. That's why we need the guardian of the method of science, to thwart Science.

Correct. Just as: If it cannot proven that thinking does not exist, then it does exist. And thinking does exist, and some of thinking is our ability to formulate definitions and to construct proofs. Proofs that free will does not exist, proofs that when we experience making a free choice, it is not really free have been offered by others. Which one do you think correct? What is your proof, specifically? If you find no proof up to your standards and if you have the experience of freely choosing to reply to this post or not, then you should accept that you have that freedom. At least you should accept it until such time as you formulate or see a good enough proof that it does not exist, despite appearances.

So Atman is (in) the Self and Brahman is (ultimate) Reality?

In asking the "what would Ayn Rand..." question, I am presuming that she and you were both seeking the truth and each would change one's mind according to facts and logic when presented with them. So if she could grasp your reasoning as valid, she would revise her ideas, or if she could refute your reasoning, you would revise. Those Objectivist philosophers: If it weren't merely the result of coincidental independent work and they didn't credit you, it's a serious injustice that engenders unpleasant resentment. Life is tenacious, especially human life. Before thermodynamics could eventually wipe out humanity, the unending power of reason will find a solution, including maybe discovering laws that supersede (but not contradict) thermodynamics.

It's an axiom that one uses in "denying" its very existence by choosing to type out that question. Read Peikoff's OPAR to understand the answers to your questions.

If I can't prove that free will doesn't exist, does that mean it does exist?

State your proof that free will does not exist. Just as you would state your proof that Martians do not exist. Or that the sum of angles in any triangle in a Euclidean plane is 2R.

Are you asking me to use free will to prove that free will doesn't exist?

I used an AI Chatbot to define Martian, just to show that free will isn't necessary to define it. I also used it to answer your next two questions: Here's a breakdown of "establishing" a fact or truth, and why it matters: Facts vs. Truths (Nuances): Facts: Facts are generally considered objective observations about the world that can be verified through evidence or experimentation. They are often phrased as statements that can be proven true or false. (e.g., "The Earth revolves around the Sun.") Truths: Truths can be a bit more subjective and encompass broader concepts or ideas that may not be definitively proven but widely accepted. They can involve moral principles, cultural beliefs, or existential questions. (e.g., "Love is important for a happy life.") Establishing Facts and Truths: Evidence and Verification: "Establishing" a fact or truth involves providing evidence or justification for it. For facts, this might involve scientific experiments, historical records, or reliable data. For truths (especially those with a subjective element), establishing them involves building consensus, providing strong arguments, or appealing to shared experiences. The Process of Discovery: Facts and truths often pre-exist their establishment. We discover them through observation, exploration, or critical thinking. The process of establishing them makes the knowledge more reliable and widely accepted. Why Does Establishing Facts and Truths Matter? Reliability: Established facts and truths provide a foundation for building knowledge and making informed decisions. They help us understand the world around us and navigate complex situations. Communication and Agreement: Establishing facts and truths allows for clear communication and shared understanding. It sets a common ground for discussions, debates, and decision-making processes. Progress and Innovation: Established facts pave the way for new discoveries and innovations. When we know something is true or false, it helps us direct our research and development efforts. Example: Imagine a new archeological discovery. The artifacts themselves exist (fact), but their significance and meaning need to be established through research, interpretation, and comparison with existing knowledge (establishing a truth about their historical context). Overall: While facts and truths might exist independently, establishing them through evidence, verification, and reasoning strengthens their credibility and allows us to use them effectively. It's an ongoing process that contributes to the advancement of knowledge and understanding.

How do you know there are no Martians? Must you have proof to know that? How do you know that there cannot both be and not be Martians at the same time and in the same sense? How do you know that is true? By proof? How do you know you have typed some questions? Do you need a proof to know that is so? I'd say one does need memory, working and semantic, to think anything up at this level of posting, and one needs thinking to know anything. But surely we know lots of things without proof of them. To know that the sum of the angles of any triangle is 2R requires proof. But to know that any triangle is trilateral does not require proof. To know I'm writing this does not require proof. To know I selected to do this instead of not doing it does not require proof. To know, to the contrary, that I did not freely select between those two options would require proof. What is the proof that I don’t have free will? where free will is exemplified by my having the ability to make this post or not and choosing to make it. What is the proof that humans have no free will? If there is no such proof, then what is plain is true: they have some free will.

I suppose I should skip to the end: the whole purpose of "proof" is to establish truths for the purpose of guiding people's decisions, which presupposes that people make them. So without free will there is no need of "proof."

These Hours of Resonant Existence Tomorrows

Truth is to fact as meaning is to definition? I suspect agreement on that question is needed before unpacking either the definition or meaning of the concept and /or qua concept that there is a discernible referent.

In principle , for the sake of argument, as a thought experiment etc ,yada, the external world could be mere appearance of a universe of entities whose attributes are not fully accessible to you the observer. Can an analogous proposition be made against awareness, could your awareness be manifest in other manner?

What does it mean to "establish" a fact or truth? As opposed to the fact or truth simply existing. Why does it matter whether a fact or a truth is "established" or not?

Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of something.