1. Realty is determined

I just chose to type this. If we're going to appeal to some imaginary sub-processing in my mind that is "really" me, instead of brain activity simply being simultaneous with thought, then I can just as easily say your thoughts are the dreams of purple lions or whatever. We are free in ourselves, we can only qualify our will as free, it is the freest thing we know.

>I just chose to type this. If we're going to appeal to some imaginary sub-processing in my mind that is "really" me, instead of brain activity simply being simultaneous with thought
are you positing that thought isn't brain activity and we have non-material souls that act as our will?

You are thinking with remembered signs(words, ect.) , thinking in patterns formed through experience.
Like I said you only think this free because you are ignorant. I really have no point in arguing with a kno-nothing.
Thought is not spatial-temporally linear.

Every action you have "chosen" to take was determined by your genes and environment.

There's even been research that suggests the "sensation" of "choosing" to raise your arm took place after the decision to do it had already been made.

are you positing that the experience of thought in itself is wholly reducible to brain activity?

lol how do you have so much trouble with this, you're autistic

I choose to type this. I, my subjective "I" in the moment. A

I am also determined to choose this. B

It is both A AND B, not A = B you fucking numbskull

No, this would be a better of saying it:

Neither A OR B, but A = B, B does not have primacy over A and vice versa

>are you positing that the experience of thought in itself is wholly reducible to brain activity?

We haven't got to the bottom of understanding the brain yet but there's zero evidence of anything else taking place.

Just because you are under the impression that you have chosen doesn't make it so.
>thought is irreducible to brain activity
Not that guy but, Yeesh. Learn about externalist philosophy of the mind.
This is the last reply I will bless you with

what reason do you have to think that it's not and it requires some other kind of substance we can't detect or identify?

>de-condition lower-order determinisms
what?

lol, still can't quite get that experience in and of itself is irreducible to physical processes. Who cares about externalism, how our beliefs are conditioned says nothing about the fact of or experiencing them in the first place. To even talk about belief is to presuppose a subject having that belief, even a conditioned belief presupposes a pure "I" that apprehends it. Quality deniers are literally autistic

The guy you're replying to is fucking retarded but y'all niggas are forgetting about sign relations. The mind doesn't exist in the brain, the brain remembers the mind and computes those memories in order to think

Whatever retard. If you are trying to argue Homunculi then you really do not get radical externalism

If you don't get the hard problem, it's time to take your autism meds

>The mind doesn't exist in the brain, the brain remembers the mind and computes those memories in order to think
I've heard that the non-material soul doesn't exist in the brain, but not the second part. so by "remembers" the mind do you mean the brain isn't in constant interaction with the mind and functions totally independent even in producing actions?

Conciousness is a mind capable of experiencing itself, I don't veiw it as a problem.
Nonetheless it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, you're using it as a buzzword.
Also, read global rule #3 my brainlet friend.
Yes, where the brain is a computer running software that is the mind. The program exists in the symbols the computer has remembered and not the computer itself.
www.consciousness.it/Docs/Manzotti%202011%20-%20Teorema%20-%20The%20Spread%20Mind%20-%20Proofs.pdf

And software determines hardware. Everytime I acquire a new habit the brain is literally rewiring itself, it's right there in the OP. How fucking retarded do you have to be to have the same views and still think we disagree? Lmao

Except you continue to say that this is somehow magically compatible with free will, it obvious you are talking about agency and not free will, but even that is shallow and doesn't exist when cognition isn't viewed as a closed system. Youre viewing thus question with the subtle Cartesian dogma that still infests every corner of philosophy of the mind and cognitive science.

I don't see how anything can qualify as "more" free than how free I already feel. You're getting cucked by cognitive science.

You're getting cucked with your own mind. I don't even study cognitive science, i study philosophy of the mind- biosemiotics

You are a small step closer to becoming a Kantian.

Congratulations?????

What is the distinction between agency and free will?

>biosemiotics

This cunt again.

>1. Reality is determined.
what are the actual arguments for this?
and do you mean causally determined, nomically determined, logically determined, or something else? there are many different forms of determinism
i assume you mean causally determined, so how do you know reality is causally deterministic? if you think it's because everything has a cause, then 1) how do you avoid the infinite regress? and 2) how do you know every cause is deterministic?
>2. We can react to and de-condition lower-order determinisms.
what does this mean? what is "de-conditioning"?

>what are the actual arguments for this?

Look at it this way. If you have a decent rifle and are a good shot and aim at a target and shoot does the bullet go where you expect it to go and hit the target or does it do a loop the loop and fly to the Moon?

Agents choose based on the options presented to them/ the experiential knowledge acquired by interacting with their environment, free will is happens independent of that.
Ur lord and savior has returned. I'm also the ecology cunt. Thinking about becoming a tripfag for the meta bamboozling

1. If free will is defined in a way that requires metaphysical alternative possibilities, then determinism contravenes free will.
2. Free will is what we are talking about e.g. when we defend somebody accused of a crime by saying he was "not acting out of his own free will", or when we ask someone about to sign a contract "are you signing this contract of your own free will?", etc.
3. There is no good argument that those utterances in those contexts wouldn't make sense if there were no metaphysical alternative possibilities.
4. So a definition of free will that requires metaphysical alternative possibilities is a bad definition.
5. So unless determinism contravenes free will in a way not involving metaphysical alternative possibilities, free will is compatible with determinism.

i expect it to hit the target of course
what conclusion do you draw from this?
if it's determinism, why and what kind?

You can't explain the assent to all these processes. The illusion of freedom itself. Agents choose according to their conditioning but the question is the presence of the agent that is even choosing to begin with. There is no choosing without the pure I. You're cucked by autistic philosophy of mind into abstracting away from the fact of the subject itself

>i expect it to hit the target of course
>what conclusion do you draw from this?
>if it's determinism, why and what kind?

Causal determinism.

why

>I just chose to type this.
no you didn't, its a reaction that you cannot help. You can claim free will if you didn't type.

Surely that should be self-evident from what I already said here. How could you even have free will if your actions have no cause that you could determine?

>that you could determine?
what does you in this mean? Is it subconscious or the conscious self? if Subconscious there was a hidden purpose unknown to the conscious self.

Naturalistic materialism is a fucking poison. Everything is reduced to "lol chemicals on your brain XDDDD"

>Surely that should be self-evident from what I already said here.
no, explain

how do you avoid it? and what's your alternative?

I have no idea what you mean. If you take an action and you had no idea what would happen as a result of your action how could you have free will?

If you fire a gun at target you hit the target unless you are a bad shot. If your pour water into a kettle and press the button does it turn the water into a blue chicken or does it boil the water?

You either agree cause and affect is true or you agree your actions have no causal effect and thus free will has no meaning in the first place.

>How to you avoid it
By not being an ignorant cuck that thinks that science is the only tool to understand our world

You don't go to a debate about the ethics of abortion and then say "lol, ethics are just chemicals in your brain XDDD"

If you reply to this post, Free Will exists.

Go ahead, let your genes respond.

Are you saying people never take actions without knowing exactly what the pre determined result will be? That seems illogical. People often can estimate what the action will be, bit only a fool will say with certainty that he knows the end result of all his actions.

what do non-physical things consist of?

There is nothing non physical. All ideas and information is stored in a physical pattern of mater, energy, ones and zeros, positive and negative spins.

But that doesn't mean we cannot create new patterns that do not yet exist and have no exact match to anything else.

>Are you saying people never take actions without knowing exactly what the pre determined result will be?

That depends how far into the future you want to go. I'm stating you either have cause and effect or free will doesn't exist.

>there's nothing non-musical
>Le humans are just computers meme

Consciousness is not-material. Values and ethics, morality and multiple abstract concepts are non-material.

Being aware with totality of all your actions and the causes and effects of all those actions would require absolute awareness of all things. We do not have such omnicognizance. Yet still we take actions.

This is an enormous strawman. I didn't suggest omnicognizance or absolute awareness of all things.

I asked whether if you took a simple action with an obvious effect whether you could predict that effect or whether the results would be completely random.

They are words that represent non material values. But the concept of those values, the words used to represent them, even in the most abstract sense are material patterns stored in the brain.

There is no place where you can stand an gaze upon "morality" and "ethics" This is true. But the paterns that make up those words that you know so well, every action you observed that represent those words to you, every memory you have of trying to understand those concepts is the result of stored physical patterns in your brain and the transition and creation of those patterns from person to person. It's a complex web of paterns that complexly combine to create an abstract impression of non physical existence. That doesn't mean that ethics and morals do not exist, and do not have value. On the contrary, they very much exist in physical reality as patterns stored and transmitted by us all. This does not lessen the value of them to me. I am not physical reductionist.

you are just listing non-physical things
i asked what you think they consist of if they are not physical
what do you think consciousness, abstracta, and moral properties consist of?

It was an unfair straw man. My apologies.

If you take an action with reasonable certainty of a resulting effect, and that effect is what is observed then you have made a prediction accurately based on the patterns you have previously observed and stored as physical arrangements in your brain. You can know that if you cause a pot to heat, and, if you put water in that pot it will result in boiling water. However the pattern in your brain does not cause the water to boil. It can cause you to take actions witch create the conditions that will boil the water. But your brain does not boil the water.

>1. Realty is determined.

By what and who says? And how does that refute free will?

See

If you imagine an empty pot, then imagine filling up that empty pot with water, then imagine turning on the stove, then imagine watching the water boil. You have just expressed patterns in your mind, memories, abstractions of predictable patterns and observations you have made stored as arrangements of mater and energy in your brain. Even if you contemplated every conceivable aspect of this imaginary action of boiling a pot of water, the shape and material of the cold pot, the arrangement of the molecules of metal that comprise the pot, imagine the heat if the stove transmitting that energy into the molecules of the pot, the energy of t he water increasing and beginning to boil... ECT. Even if you contemplated the entire process down to the microscopic level, with the clarity of a super human being. All of this would still be expressions of the stored patterns of physical arrangements of energy and mater in your brain.

So why are you thinking about boiling water?

If you were to imagine and contemplate the entire process of boiling water including all the relevant cause and effects, motions of all the particles and transfer of all the energy, if you were to have absolute understanding of the entire process with mathematical exactitude and calculated the entire amount of energy and matter used to contemplate and calculate that imaginary reality would it be a smaller or larger quantity of patterned energy and mater involved than then actual act of walking over and hearing up a pot of water without giving it any more thought than simply "Make boiling water" and then relying, unthinkingly on the patterns you previously knew and then resulting in an actual physical pot of boiling water?

>If you take an action with reasonable certainty of a resulting effect, and that effect is what is observed then you have made a prediction accurately based on the patterns you have previously observed and stored as physical arrangements in your brain. You can know that if you cause a pot to heat, and, if you put water in that pot it will result in boiling water.

So you agree cause and effect is a real thing, which is where our conversation started.

I think the other guy you were talking to left and I took over. I agree that all things that exist, exist as physical patterns of mater and energy. Even abstract concepts are complexes of stored patterns that can have cause and effect actions on each other. So yes cause and effect exist but that does not mean people do not take actions, and that actions, causes and effects are always predictable. It's certainly not true about electrons. Why should it be true about humans made up of vast quantities of patterns of energy and matter?