Free will

[Sirius]

I assumed that by higher authority you meant some sort of God. I don't submit to this higher authority because I don't believe it exists. If it does exist it hasn't made clear to me what it wants from me.

There are authorities that do exist, and that I do submit to. For example I follow the law, mostly.

You still haven't answered my question, but I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're getting to that.

I answered all your questions

[UltraBudgie]

do you have free will not to poop?
could poop here, could poop there
but poop you will
is that free will? somewhat

is like this place
this is not earth
this is bubble world
spiritually disconnected
some free will inside here
but in a bubble

real world had free will
connection to spirit of infinite possibility
but that was before we came here
this story has a definite end

maybe some have been here all along
is that what npcs are?
i suppose they have free will of a kind
in their way

[Ignorant]

Im on the fence.

But it's like we’re stuck between two equally bizarre options.

Either everything is determined, and we are but mere passengers.

Or randomness gives us freedom, but in the most chaotic coin-flippy way possible.

Maybe the problem is in how we define free will.

We expect to be in total control.

When it might actually be about navigating within constraints.

I mean, we may have free will, but just not the mythical all-powerful version we like to romanticise.

We may not choose our cards, but we play the hand we are dealt, at least to some extent. 

Indeed I think the problem is in the definition. If we define free will as coming from outside ourselves somehow, as something indeterministic (the coin flip), we run into absurdity whether we claim to have free will or not. To avoid this absurdity we have to remove determinism as a factor. It's irrelevant.

What we are then left with is that free will is simply the possibility for an agent to act according to their preference. In short: The possibility of choice.

Then we could say that if an agent acts, and another agent could have acted differently (if we replaced the agent with another, they could make a different choice), i.e. the agent is not restrained or forced to act a certain way, it has free will.

This is known as compatibilism. It has problems, too.

[Ignorant]

I answered all your questions

 

Am I predicable? Are you?

What if I said "yes"? Would you argue we don't have free will?

[andy06shake]

Indeed I think the problem is in the definition. If we define free will as coming from outside ourselves somehow, as something indeterministic (the coin flip), we run into absurdity whether we claim to have free will or not. To avoid this absurdity we have to remove determinism as a factor. It's irrelevant.

What we are then left with is that free will is simply the possibility for an agent to act according to their preference. In short: The possibility of choice.

Then we could say that if I, an agent, make a choice, and another agent could have acted differently (if we replaced me with another agent, they could make a different choice), I have free will.

This is known as compatibilism.

Seems to me freewill is like riding shotgun in a car, built by everything that's ever happened to you.

Where we pretend we are steering, which gives life flavor.

And that flavor is freedom enough for most.

Nonetheless, a proper philosophical head scratcher and splinter in the brain.

One of those areas where further study is most definitely required. 

[quintessentone]

This tends to be an entertaining subject, in my experience.

So, free will. What is it, and do we have it?

Yes. Knowing how to use it is the trick.

One example, is that we are in a wealth (workers' creating wealth for companies/elitists) from the bottom-to-the top pyramidal economic scheme (or also known as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor) where power and free will for the bottom people are questionable (unless you go off grid and live off the land). We do have power and free will in how we spend our money as consumers, while we are powerless as taxpayers where our money goes, so in this instance, we all have free will to take action to make substantial changes to the top people who take and usually do not give back. Choose well.

[Maxmars]

We must surely be missing some third alternative...

Something along the lines of:  The 'choice' can only be illusion, if the end is fixed.

The binary nature of differential analysis as a thought modality...
renders, by intent, all things down to "either/or." 

Such reasoning may be a precarious tool to rely upon in self-referential perceptions.

It seems reasonable that our ignorance of the width and breath of reality is the actual determinant (or constraint) of the flow...

Binary thinking (It cannot be this way, if it is also that way) might just be "an appearance" from our framework.

Our reasoning recognizes a tune, but can't agree on how to dance to it.

This is about "will," isn't it? Free or otherwise...

Or is this about what is "Free?"

Free of what, choice, point, reason, cost, responsibility;
or freedom in the "liberty" sense... 'freedom to [insert verb]?"

Laying up one against the other.... what changes between them?...

... freedom expressed seems the only direct way to measure freedom "in society," yes?...
(That it is expressed, claimed as sovereign, and mutually respected.)

But "Will?"...That's a much deeper question... in the final analysis, I think.

[Ignorant]

Something along the lines of:  The 'choice' can only be illusion, if the end is fixed.

This suggests that the choice is not illusion if the end is not fixed. We addressed the problem with this earlier. Do you think it's not a problem, or have some solution perhaps?

[Maxmars]

It was only meant as an allusion of an example...
Your interpretation of my words is probably my fault...

"Something along the lines of:  The 'choice' can only be illusion, if the end is fixed."

Perhaps, if I point out that your inversion meant to clarify...

"suggests that the choice is not illusion if the end is not fixed"

I did not mean that choice is or isn't an illusion...
(when you know the end to what purpose is the choice relative to it?)

For that to work as a statement means my knowledge is complete...
the choice is true...
there is a desired outcome...
thus there is always a measure of "risk," even if only notional.

I wonder if ... Something along the lines of: Risk is an illusion, if you know the outcome.
Would translate to the idea of what choice is...
because some choices are choices...
others are a cigar. 

[Sirius]

Patrick 

Just saying. Well, let's break that
down. Ray, are you saying that uh I was1
literally put in place to start vetted
two years ago just to get to this point1
where I would distract from Ross's
narrative right now.

https://youtu.be/fLa9gOmNp4Q?t=1015

Yes that is literally how it works, check the content of your video..I wonder what it's about and the meaning of it all, the guest etc. Now at this time...hmmmm

Ja, you will find out