im actually a philosopher

[Klasik616]

What I asked in my last post

Math can be discovered by any being cappable of being smart enough to make abstractions of objects.

 

[Sink]

While it’s true that our brain, tendencies, and prior causes shape choices, I’m arguing that (Dennett agrees with) freedom is about acting according to one’s deliberation and desires, not the absence of causal influence. Conscious awareness and the ability to reason, reflect, and act on values constitute a meaningful form of free will, even if the choices are influenced by prior conditions. So determinism does not logically negate genuine freedom

I get the compatibilist angle, that acting in line with your values, deliberations, and desires counts as '‘freedom’' even if those desires are caused. But my point is that this redefines freedom rather than preserving it. If every value, preference, and line of reasoning I '‘act on’' is itself the product of prior causes I didn’t choose, then saying I’m free because I act according to them just shifts the problem, it doesn’t solve it.

Under determinism deliberation isn’t a source of freedom, it’s simply another deterministic process. I ‘'reason’' the way my brain is built to reason, and I '‘value’' what my brain is built to value, so compatibilism gives a pragmatic definition of freedom, not a metaphysical one, i’m saying that if the chooser is fully produced by causes, then the chooser never had real alternative possibilities, and the sense of agency is just awareness of a predetermined output.

 

[foidletslayer]

Math can be discovered by any being cappable of being smart enough to make abstractions of objects.

I’m asking you about logic not arithmetics

 

[foidletslayer]

Fair enough but maths is too objective for a concept like relativism, imo it has more real world applications

I know u did not ask for this but

The statement 2 + 2 = 4 is true bcs it follows directly from the formal definitions of natural numbers & addition. Let the natural numbers \mathbb{N} be defined according to the Peano axioms, where 0 exists and every number n has a unique successor S. Define 2 as S(S(0)) and 4 as S(S(S(S(0)))). Addition is defined recursively: \forall n \in \mathbb{N}, 0 + n = n and \forall m, n \in \mathbb{N}, S(m) + n = S(m + n). Then, using these definitions: 2 + 2 = S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(0) + S(S(0))) = S(S(S(0) + S(0))) = S(S(S(S(0) + 0))) = S(S(S(S(0)))) = 4. More generally, \forall x, y \in \mathbb{N} \; ((x = 2 \wedge y = 2) \rightarrow x + y = 4). This demonstrates that 2 + 2 = 4 is an objective truth, derivable entirely from the formal structure of arithmetic using quantification, & is independent of perception

 

[foidletslayer]

I get the compatibilist angle, that acting in line with your values, deliberations, and desires counts as '‘freedom’' even if those desires are caused. But my point is that this redefines freedom rather than preserving it. If every value, preference, and line of reasoning I '‘act on’' is itself the product of prior causes I didn’t choose, then saying I’m free because I act according to them just shifts the problem, it doesn’t solve it.

Under determinism deliberation isn’t a source of freedom, it’s simply another deterministic process. I ‘'reason’' the way my brain is built to reason, and I '‘value’' what my brain is built to value, so compatibilism gives a pragmatic definition of freedom, not a metaphysical one, i’m saying that if the chooser is fully produced by causes, then the chooser never had real alternative possibilities, and the sense of agency is just awareness of a predetermined output.

Even if every desire, preference, and line of reasoning is causally determined, freedom still exists in the meaningful sense that your actions arise from your integrated self, your deliberations, and your values. Compatibilism does not ignore determinism; it shows that agency and practical choice are preserved within a causal framework, making the chooser both real and responsible, even if metaphysical ‘could-have-done-otherwise’ is unattainable.

 

[Klasik616]

I’m asking you about logic not arithmetics

Logic as far as we know is only human and is result of proper development.

 

[Sink]

A brain cannot choose, objects can't choose. Only an individual is able to choose, and this is the subject which is obviously affected by your brain but your personality depends on the experiences you had through your entire life, so when the "brain" chooses the brain is you. A subject is able to retain, replace and add information with his free will and own judgment, there isn't a rule. The machine doesn't interact with the world, a human sets the machine to move with another objects. I can decide wether to think about this answer or just rage. The brain is my weapon, not me.

You’re treating ''brain'' and ''individual'' as if they’re two separate kinds of things, but they’re not. The individual is the brain together with the body system. When you say ''the brain can’t choose, only the individual can,'' you’re just relabeling the same physical system with a different word and treating it as if that magically creates free will. Objects vs subjects isn’t a magical boundary, a ''subject'' isn’t a special metaphysical entity, it’s a physical system with self modeling, memory, and complex decision making. A brain is exactly that type of system, calling it an “individual” doesn’t add anything extra or non-physical. Also experiences shaping personality doesn’t contradict determinism, experiences change the brain. But the way experiences affect the brain is still determined by the brain’s structure and prior state.

You’re saying: ''the brain is affected by experiences'' which i agree on, But those experiences only matter because they physically change the system, so the brain that still doesn’t create an independent, uncaused chooser. When you're saying ''the brain is you'', yes, that’s exactly my point when the brain chooses, YOU choose, but the choosing is still driven by prior causes, wiring, chemistry, and learning history. You compared humans to machines controlled by humans, but humans are self-regulating systems, they don’t need an external operator, that doesn’t make them non-physical or non-determined, It just makes them complex. You keep saying that because the ''individual'' chooses, it must have free will, i’m saying the individual is just the brain, and the brain’s choices come from its physical state and experiences. At the end of the day calling it an individual doesn’t solve the problem, it just changes the label

 

[Klasik616]

You’re treating ''brain'' and ''individual'' as if they’re two separate kinds of things, but they’re not. The individual is the brain together with the body system. When you say ''the brain can’t choose, only the individual can,'' you’re just relabeling the same physical system with a different word and treating it as if that magically creates free will. Objects vs subjects isn’t a magical boundary, a ''subject'' isn’t a special metaphysical entity, it’s a physical system with self modeling, memory, and complex decision making. A brain is exactly that type of system, calling it an “individual” doesn’t add anything extra or non-physical. Also experiences shaping personality doesn’t contradict determinism, experiences change the brain. But the way experiences affect the brain is still determined by the brain’s structure and prior state.

You’re saying: ''the brain is affected by experiences'' which i agree on, But those experiences only matter because they physically change the system, so the brain that still doesn’t create an independent, uncaused chooser. When you're saying ''the brain is you'', yes, that’s exactly my point when the brain chooses, YOU choose, but the choosing is still driven by prior causes, wiring, chemistry, and learning history. You compared humans to machines controlled by humans, but humans are self-regulating systems, they don’t need an external operator, that doesn’t make them non-physical or non-determined, It just makes them complex. You keep saying that because the ''individual'' chooses, it must have free will, i’m saying the individual is just the brain, and the brain’s choices come from its physical state and experiences. At the end of the day calling it an individual doesn’t solve the problem, it just changes the label

So we should change the word humans for brains? Are you sure the brain is enough, or maybe we should name them walking brains, smart legs, whatever. The agent of an action is never predetermined, the agent has freedom in the sense he has consciousness of his own situation, that's why the idea of freedom as "being able to do anything" is wrong and absurd, you're free when you know what to do. Humans don't live alone, we're surrounded by subjects and objects, and the difference is crucial because without this there's no ethics and you doing a murder is just a result of a bad brain which is an object. Nope, your entire body is controled by you, evolution gives the tool for you to control the body. Even if the body is broken, your own thoughts are enough to say you have free will.

 

[Sink]

Even if every desire, preference, and line of reasoning is causally determined, freedom still exists in the meaningful sense that your actions arise from your integrated self, your deliberations, and your values. Compatibilism does not ignore determinism; it shows that agency and practical choice are preserved within a causal framework, making the chooser both real and responsible, even if metaphysical ‘could-have-done-otherwise’ is unattainable.

But that’s exactly the point, you’re treating self caused and free as the same thing. Compatibilism preserves responsibility but abandons freedom in the original sense. If my ‘'integrated self’', my values, reasoning style, tendencies, impulses is itself the product of prior causes, then saying I’m free because my actions come from ‘'me’' just avoids the deeper issue, why is ''me'' the way it is? If i didn't choose my temperament, emotional tendencies, cognitive style, intuitions, values, susceptibility to certain reasoning or the experiences that shaped all of this, then acting according to them is not freedom, it’s just internal necessity. The ‘'self'’ isn’t an uncaused cause. It’s a determined system acting according to its structure. So I’m not denying the existence of agency in the psychological sense, i’m saying that compatibilism renames a determined process as ‘'freedom’' and asks us to accept that as the same thing. It keeps moral responsibility but abandons metaphysical freedom. That’s fine, but it means the original problem remains, which is that the chooser is still fully shaped by causes, not by choice

 

[foidletslayer]

But that’s exactly the point, you’re treating self caused and free as the same thing. Compatibilism preserves responsibility but abandons freedom in the original sense. If my ‘'integrated self’', my values, reasoning style, tendencies, impulses is itself the product of prior causes, then saying I’m free because my actions come from ‘'me’' just avoids the deeper issue, why is ''me'' the way it is? If i didn't choose my temperament, emotional tendencies, cognitive style, intuitions, values, susceptibility to certain reasoning or the experiences that shaped all of this, then acting according to them is not freedom, it’s just internal necessity. The ‘'self'’ isn’t an uncaused cause. It’s a determined system acting according to its structure. So I’m not denying the existence of agency in the psychological sense, i’m saying that compatibilism renames a determined process as ‘'freedom’' and asks us to accept that as the same thing. It keeps moral responsibility but abandons metaphysical freedom. That’s fine, but it means the original problem remains, which is that the chooser is still fully shaped by causes, not by choice

Do you understand the concept of freedom and free will

 

[Sink]

So we should change the word humans for brains? Are you sure the brain is enough, or maybe we should name them walking brains, smart legs, whatever. The agent of an action is never predetermined, the agent has freedom in the sense he has consciousness of his own situation, that's why the idea of freedom as "being able to do anything" is wrong and absurd, you're free when you know what to do. Humans don't live alone, we're surrounded by subjects and objects, and the difference is crucial because without this there's no ethics and you doing a murder is just a result of a bad brain which is an object. Nope, your entire body is controled by you, evolution gives the tool for you to control the body. Even if the body is broken, your own thoughts are enough to say you have free will.

i'll respond to this then go to bed

 

[Sink]

So we should change the word humans for brains? Are you sure the brain is enough, or maybe we should name them walking brains, smart legs, whatever. The agent of an action is never predetermined, the agent has freedom in the sense he has consciousness of his own situation, that's why the idea of freedom as "being able to do anything" is wrong and absurd, you're free when you know what to do. Humans don't live alone, we're surrounded by subjects and objects, and the difference is crucial because without this there's no ethics and you doing a murder is just a result of a bad brain which is an object. Nope, your entire body is controled by you, evolution gives the tool for you to control the body. Even if the body is broken, your own thoughts are enough to say you have free will.

You’re mixing two different questions. The first one being what is the agent, and the 2nd one: is the agent's behavior casually determined. Calling the agent ''a person'', ''an individual'', or ''a brain-system'' doesn’t change anything about the 2nd question. You keep arguing about labels (brain, individual, subject) as if changing the label changes the causal structure. My point is simple which is that the individual equals the physical system (brain + body), amd that physical system has consciousness, memory, self-awareness, but its decisions still come from physical causes. Consciousness doesn’t add an uncaused ''freedom''. Experiences shape the individual, but experiences shape us by changing the physical system not by creating a metaphysical chooser outside the system. And nothing about determinism removes ethics, ethics is about how a system behaves, not about denying that it has causes. Saying ''the agent is conscious'' or ''humans live in society'' doesn’t introduce a non-physical freedom, it just describes what kind of determined system we are.

 

[Sink]

ok i'll go to bed and respond to the rest of the things tomorrow gn

 

[unkownincel]

holy shit bro 2 pages? @foidletslayer crazyy

 

[Sink]

Do you understand the concept of freedom and free will

Yes, there are 2 definitions for for the concept of free will which are libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. My position is simply that compatibilism preserves the usefulness of the word ''freedom'', but not the deeper metaphysical freedom people intuitively mean. Acting according to your desires doesn’t answer the question of where those desires come from. If they come from causes you didn’t choose, then the ability to ''choose'' among them isn’t ultimate freedom it’s a determined process you’re consciously aware of. I understand both definitions, I’m saying the compatibilist version is a redefinition, not the original meaning of free will.

 

[foidletslayer]

Yes, there are 2 definitions for for the concept of free will which are libertarian free will and compatibilist free will. My position is simply that compatibilism preserves the usefulness of the word ''freedom'', but not the deeper metaphysical freedom people intuitively mean. Acting according to your desires doesn’t answer the question of where those desires come from. If they come from causes you didn’t choose, then the ability to ''choose'' among them isn’t ultimate freedom it’s a determined process you’re consciously aware of. I understand both definitions, I’m saying the compatibilist version is a redefinition, not the original meaning of free will.

@theRetard

 

[Sink]

@theRetard

rip

 

[foidletslayer]

rip

I’m talking with him in pms