The illusion of free will

[Sarkus]

perhaps someone else would like to comment on the issue of how "nothing" can destroy the determinist position that, (like cause and effect) freewill is an illusion.. [ chuckle ]
Clearly the reality of nothingness is essential to the ability to move anything, think anything etc after all if the space whether mental or physical is already taken up thought or action would be impossible.

I think Baldeee hit the nail on the head when he said that "nothing" (or your argument and understanding of what "nothing" is) doesn't "destroy" anything.
First, you are jumping from the perception of their being "nothing" to stop us moving in the direction we do, straight to "and therefore there is freewill". Again, a rather familiar train of thought in this thread. Care to fill in the gaps?

Second, what you are not doing, and what you are seemingly refusing to do, is consider what is actually causing us TO act, and instead you focus on a few things that aren't there to stop us acting.
Until you even consider what it is that is causing us to act, your focus will be on what you consciously aware of as obstacles. Even the removal of those obstacles that you are consciously aware of, such that there is "nothing" preventing movement in any direction, still doesn't get to the meat of whether you are subconsciously able to do anything other than what you do.
As such your argument remains rooted in the "freewill as a perception of conscious choice" which can no more distinguish illusion from reality as any other argument you or MR have presented.
Any freewill you think it demonstrates can only ever be defined such as it is determined by what we perceive.

 

[wellwisher]

A good litmus test for will power and free will begin at the limits of computers. Computers can learn, remember and retrieve data trivia. They can use logic and statistics and do calculations. They can be programmed to react, sort, and can make random or repeat choices, based on any given criteria. But computers are not alive, and able to deviate from this programming, except in a random way. They can't create new situations outside the programming in a willful way that detaches from the programming.

It is probably true, that most of what most people do, could be done better by a computer, and is therefore more machine in nature. But where computers leave off and can't tread, is in creating new thing that deviate from the program. This is where will power begins. Free will takes this one step further and in that it can also choose to do the opposite of the programming by stepping outside the program.

 

[Quantum Quack]

First, you are jumping from the perception of their being "nothing" to stop us moving in the direction we do, straight to "and therefore there is freewill". Again, a rather familiar train of thought in this thread. Care to fill in the gaps?

Firstly I didn't and secondly I did...

It is actually very simple and far from just a mere assertion. It is just something that people rarely consider as important. Especially if it makes their position redundant and in some way makes the major breakthrough that they themselves are greedy for.
In the case of mathematics zero is clearly the most important and most influential number for with out it mathematics would be useless. Equivalency is only proven as true by the use of zero. 1+1 =2 because 2- (1+1) = 0

If A = B, and B=C then A=C routine only stands as valid because
A-A = 0,
A-B = 0,
A-C = 0
So the value of zero could be considered as the most influential value in mathematics yet that value represents nothing, empty set, zilch, zero, void, unconsciousness, oblivion.

Examples:
You can only move your arm because there is vacant space for you to move it to.
The future is only available as a future and not a "past future", because it does not materially exist. [ nothing ]
(For determinism to hold entirely true the past and the future MUST be materially present [existent] and thank goodness they aren't)
The only reason you can read this typing is because there is space between and with in the characters. [ white space is essential and so is the space waiting to be filled]
Next time you go to the opera and realize there are no vacant seats available and have to stand for a couple of hours you might remember this discussion.. eh?

Do you still consider it to be a bare assertion? If so why when we are surrounded by evidence of nothing all the time.
"Self determination therefore freewill is only available because we have a universe with lots of nothing to play in"

...and Darth Vader says "I do not want that planet to be there, I want to see nothing where that planet is"

Therefore because "nothing" can not be a determining cause or a determining effect the premise you are employing as with most determinist's is utterly flawed .

You are just fishing for that missing element that I alluded to earlier..
Which is kinda funny actually because I have posted about it before years ago... 'tis no secret..so to speak.

QQ posted:
As far as showing how freewill is actually guaranteed and how nothing is a significant paradox, there appears no point laboring with someone who can not even grasp the simplistic notion that if space is taken up with something that prevents it from being moved into, movement into that space is impossible...

Suffice to say that if you can provide evidence that the future [or the past for that matter] actually exists then I may consider retracting my claim...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Whether intentional or not, you are not talking about "nothing".
You seem to be talking about "absence".
As in "the absence of something".
The absence of something can influence us, because we can imagine its existence compared to what is actually there.
It is semantically different to "nothing", which I would argue is the "absence of everything".
1 LY.
I can deny it.
Absence does not leave nothing.
Yes.
Relative.
Rather an important distinction.
This proves nothing, though.
"Nothing" is not "zero", especially in the realm of mathematics.
Sarkus has already pointed this out to you, I thought?
Zero is a concept.
It exists as a concept.
The concept can cause.
"Zero" itself does not exist, nor is it a cause or effect.
:bugeye:
There is no need to invoke a person in this conclusion:
The future is manifest by the present moment.
It is determined by all the interactions in the present moment.
There need be no choice.
There need be no self-determination.
A person is irrelevant to your analysis, and seems to be invoked through begging the question, an a priori assumption, or some other such fallacy.
And a future is not created out of nothing.
It is the logical conclusion of the current state.
The current state exists - the next state exists as a result - even perhaps to the detriment (annihilation) of what is now the present.

One of the greatest problems when working with the notion of zero is that the English language has no words to really describe it properly.
Even Mathematics has a confusing array of definitions all being a matter of convenience, and utility to the various number systems employed.

One of the main reasons for the failure of philosophy to move forward on this subject is that our very use of language restricts us from doing so.
zero, could be referred to as absence ..this is true. Yet absence implies the "conceptual removal of a pre-existing state" and is not comprehensive enough in scope to deal with other aspects of "nothing".
There is a need to invent a few new words to deal with is issue. Compare "no-existent" with "non-existent, "no-thing" with "nothing" for example.
This issue if also very easily confused and redirected into semantic and other sub categories of thought to the point that it is overwhelmingly rendered impossible to resolve.
For me the way to achieve clarification is to simply make a clear and absolute statement and stick to it, analyzing the statement and removing all the emotional egoistic claims one may make towards it always keeping the goal of solving the issue in mind.
a statement such as:
Movement is impossible if something is present to prevent it.
Movement is only possible if "nothing" exists to prevent it.

Axiomatic, fundamentally, frustratingly simple and self evident, yet when applied properly to the question of "freewill: illusion" can be rather powerful in aiding clarification of how important "nothing" is to the situation and how when proven in physics this debunks the notion that freewill is an illusion brought about by determining cause and effect. [ which in itself is illusionary ]

(I might add : movement - movement = 0, where by movement acquires a reality only because it is relative to no movement and the only reason we are cognizant of movement at all, could be argued is that we are observing from a position of absolute rest [ zero, nothing, zilch] that exists as our "center of perception" inside our heads.)

 

[cluelusshusbund]

"where computers leave off and can't tread, is in creating new thing that deviate from the program. This is where will power begins. Free will takes this one step further and in that it can also choose to do the opposite of the programming by stepping outside the program.

Are ther reasons that people woud "step outside the program"... or does "will power" act wit-out bein influenced.???

 

[Sarkus]

Firstly I didn't and secondly I did...

And given that your "I did" actually does not, your "I didn't" suddenly looks to be "nothing" of the sort.
What you responded with was just examples of: "there is nothing to prevent us... Therefore freewill!"
There is nothing in what you wrote about how the decision is actually reached. And of course, part of the decision will be what we are consciously aware of in regard what might and does prevent us (physically or mentally).
Your entire premise, no matter how many times you re-paste it, is based on there being no prevention to an action, and from that you conclude "freewill" without any explanation.
Further, as explained, and as conveniently ignored by you, you are looking at only those preventions that you are consciously aware of, thus reinforcing your position as being entirely about how things are perceived. You can't seem to escape from that with your thinking, no matter how hard you seem to try to convince otherwise.

You are just fishing for that missing element that I alluded to earlier..

Too damn right I'm fishing, and a discussion should not have to require it. You should be providing the missing element, and it should form part of your rational argument. But it is glaringly missing, as it was for MR's.

Which is kinda funny actually because I have posted about it before years ago... 'tis no secret..so to speak.

Then you should have no problem providing the link. Or, having already stated above that you were interested in what others have to say on the matter, do you expect everyone to trawl through years of your posts to find where you have provided this gap in your argument?
This is a new thread, and it should stand alone, so please provide links to where you have previously provided the gap, 'cos at the moment you are arguing from a position that can not go beyond what we perceive, and your conclusion is a non sequitur from your premises.

Suffice to say that if you can provide evidence that the future [or the past for that matter] actually exists then I may consider retracting my claim...

I have no need to prove it, as it makes no difference one way or the other to my argument. Further, your argument does not stand or fall on the matter either. It is just a strawman on your part. A red-herring, to avoid having to respond to the criticism of your argument.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You are claiming that all choices are determined by cause and effect. I have provided ample examples that show that position to be fallacious as "nothing" can not be considered as a cause or an effect yet "nothing" [future] is all we ever make choices about. Thus "We" are self determining and can choose freely what we wish to do with that nothing.

Unless you can provide evidence that the future somehow determines the present when it does not actually exist to do so I can't see how your position can be held as valid.

as far as the missing element is concerned if you can understand the answer to the question:
What distance is involved in instantaneous communications over 1 ly with the appropriate and only answer then you will probably work out the missing element for yourself.

Too damn right I'm fishing, and a discussion should not have to require it. You should be providing the missing element, and it should form part of your rational argument. But it is glaringly missing, as it was for MR's.

Given the incredible resistance to what I would have to write to explain it (again), is it little wonder that I have learned not to bother.
excerpt:

The Holy Grail Of Science
It is no coincidence that the holy grail of scientific understanding is the same "grail" as it is for religion, theosophy, philosophy, psychology human behavior and just about any field of inquiry into the human condition.
The Chinese refer to it as "The doctrine of the Mean", the Buddhist refer to it as the "Middle way", Aristotle referred to it as the "Golden Mean", mathematics refers to it as an "Average".
Yet when one realizes that the sum/average of all extremes, values, emotions, matter and effectively all substance universally equals zero, one can see the importance of understanding what zero means to the universe and our own individual lives.
~ZPT

 

[Sarkus]

You are claiming that all choices are determined by cause and effect. I have provided ample examples that show that position to be fallacious as "nothing" can not be considered as a cause or an effect yet "nothing" [future] is all we ever make choices about. Thus "We" are self determining and can choose freely what we wish to do with that nothing.

Not only do you once again jump from claim to conclusion, but you also equivocate meanings of "nothing": first as the physical absence of X, and then as our conceptualisation of that absence of X.
The conceptualisation can and does act as a cause. This is well within the scope of the determinist argument (even if that was the limit of the scope of my argument). The conceptualisation is also caused, in part, by our observation of the absence of X, as we overlay our observation with expectation within the processing.
You claim the future does not exist, but our conceptualisation of the future does, irrespective of whether the future actually does or not.
So I suggest you stop equivocating the reality of things with our conceptualisation of them, or at least comprehend that they are categorically different.

Unless you can provide evidence that the future somehow determines the present when it does not actually exist to do so I can't see how your position can be held as valid.

Well, even though there are a few recent experiments in QM that suggest such might occur, even theoretically, the first thing you would need to do is comprehend that what influences us, and what acts as a cause, is not the future per we but our conceptualisation of it. Just as our conceptualisation of a dog is not actually a dog, so the "future" that might act as a cause is not actually the future.

as far as the missing element is concerned if you can understand the answer to the question:
What distance is involved in instantaneous communications over 1 ly with the appropriate and only answer then you will probably work out the missing element for yourself.

The distance is still 1 LY, by definition.
So, are you now going to provide the missing element between your claim of "freedom!" and your conclusion of "freewill" that shows freewill to be more than just the conscious perception of it?

Given the incredible resistance to what I would have to write to explain it (again), is it little wonder that I have learned not to bother.

Right, we should just take you on your word that it is profound wisdom, then?
If it is just to do with the nature of zero, then you are still stuck with the same issue of equivocating your various "nothing"s, "zero"s, and other terms. Unless your "missing element" somehow resolves that, but you somehow forgot to address it in your explanations thus far in this thread?

 

[Baldeee]

One of the greatest problems when working with the notion of zero is that the English language has no words to really describe it properly.
Even Mathematics has a confusing array of definitions all being a matter of convenience, and utility to the various number systems employed.

Mathematics has very clear understanding of what zero means.
Confusing perhaps for some.

One of the main reasons for the failure of philosophy to move forward on this subject is that our very use of language restricts us from doing so.
zero, could be referred to as absence ..this is true. Yet absence implies the "conceptual removal of a pre-existing state" and is not comprehensive enough in scope to deal with other aspects of "nothing".
There is a need to invent a few new words to deal with is issue. Compare "no-existent" with "non-existent, "no-thing" with "nothing" for example.
This issue if also very easily confused and redirected into semantic and other sub categories of thought to the point that it is overwhelmingly rendered impossible to resolve.
For me the way to achieve clarification is to simply make a clear and absolute statement and stick to it, analyzing the statement and removing all the emotional egoistic claims one may make towards it always keeping the goal of solving the issue in mind.
a statement such as:
Movement is impossible if something is present to prevent it.
Movement is only possible if "nothing" exists to prevent it.

So once you establish that "nothing" exists to prevent it, how do you determine in which direction to move?
Because all I see here is a triviality: "you can't move if you are prevented from moving".
"Nothing" does not exist.
"Nothing" is not a cause.
At least not in the manner you are trying to suggest.

Another way of looking at this, and applying your own line of thinking to your own actions, the reason you appeared to "chose" to do what you did was because every other possible path was closed off to you.
You were prevented from doing anything other than exactly what you did.
It was impossible for you to do anything other than you did.
The only path in which there was genuinely "nothing" to prevent it was the one you appeared to "chose".
As such, there is no "choice" but only the appearance of it.
You just are not aware of what it is that prevents other actions that you might have thought were open to you.

This is your own line of thinking applied to your own actions.
It highlights that your line of thinking does not actually get to the crux of the matter in showing how freewill is not just a matter of appearance.
Because for that you have to show that you genuinely had the ability to choose that which you did not.
Not just the appearance of the ability.
But the actual genuine ability.

Axiomatic, fundamentally, frustratingly simple and self evident, yet when applied properly to the question of "freewill: illusion" can be rather powerful in aiding clarification of how important "nothing" is to the situation and how when proven in physics this debunks the notion that freewill is an illusion brought about by determining cause and effect. [ which in itself is illusionary ]

When applied properly, and not the way you are doing do, it does nothing of the sort.
As shown above.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Sarkus, Bakleee, others,
Are you able to comprehend, understand and acknowledge the philosophical ramifications of the following simple yet very powerful, logical truth?

x + (-)x = 0

Can you not see that it is a logical truth that the sum of all influences, or determining causes/effects amounts to zero [nothing] ?

Is it possible for you to acknowledge how important this logical truth is "potentially", at least, to this debate about freewill being an illusion?

 

[Sarkus]

@ Sarkus, Baklee,
Are you able to comprehend, understand and acknowledge the philosophical ramifications of the following simple logical truth?

x + (-)x = 0

Can you not see that it is a logical truth that the sum of all influences, or determining causes/effects amounts to zero [nothing] ?

What you post is merely mathematical. And it is as significant as the rest of mathematics. But zero is not the same as "nothing".
I also do not think there is anything particularly philosophical about "zero" beyond the philosophy of mathematics.
"Nothing" is also not a reality - at best we can conceptualise it to a degree, but otherwise, and especially in the way you are using it, it is a conceit of language to consider it as existing in any way, other than as a concept of relative quantification.

Is it possible for you to acknowledge how important this logical truth is to this debate about freewill being an illusion?

I would acknowledge it if I felt it in any way to be the case. But I don't. And you have certainly not shown it to be.
I might as well ask you if it is possible for you to acknowledge how important bananas are to the debate... because with this sentence I have offered as much of an explanation as to why there are as you have with your repeated claims of the importance of zero to the issue.
If you wish me to consider it more seriously, then explain why it is. You have failed thus far, and continue to jump from some linguistic conceit (see above) of "nothingess" to "thus freewill", as if one proves the other with no need for further explanation.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What you post is merely mathematical. And it is as significant as the rest of mathematics. But zero is not the same as "nothing".
I also do not think there is anything particularly philosophical about "zero" beyond the philosophy of mathematics.
"Nothing" is also not a reality - at best we can conceptualise it to a degree, but otherwise, and especially in the way you are using it, it is a conceit of language to consider it as existing in any way, other than as a concept of relative quantification.
I would acknowledge it if I felt it in any way to be the case. But I don't. And you have certainly not shown it to be.
I might as well ask you if it is possible for you to acknowledge how important bananas are to the debate... because with this sentence I have offered as much of an explanation as to why there are as you have with your repeated claims of the importance of zero to the issue.
If you wish me to consider it more seriously, then explain why it is. You have failed thus far, and continue to jump from some linguistic conceit (see above) of "nothingess" to "thus freewill", as if one proves the other with no need for further explanation.

How do you feel about the fact that you, and everyone else, spend at least 6 hours (*Ave. generalization) every 24 hours unconscious and in state of being "conscious of nothingness"?
Does Unconsciousness have any reality to you?
Why do I need to bring unconsciousness up when it is obvious and should be already included in any assessment?

How is it we humans can seek and become unconscious?

What does being unconscious mean to all those influences?
Is unconsciousness merely our consciousness becoming the zero in x+(-x) = 0 where by all influences cause and effects are summed out to zero.

Why do you think we would loose that ability once we are awake, that is to say, neutralize those influences we see fit to neutralize to facilitate the freedom of our choices?

How important are those illusionary causes and effects to someone who is unconscious?

Ever heard of "self restraint"?

Can you not see that it is a logical truth that the sum of all influences, or determining causes/effects amounts to zero [nothing] ?

well if you can't as you have indicated then what would be the point in explaining further?
(fortunately there are many who can)

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you wish me to consider it more seriously, then explain why it is. You have failed thus far, and continue to jump from some linguistic conceit (see above) of "nothingess" to "thus freewill", as if one proves the other with no need for further explanation.

I do not wish you to choose to do anything other than that which you choose to do.
You complain that I am jumping to a conclusion yet when presented with the steps needed you simply repeat you claim.. so go figure!
you feel that x+(-)x=0 is a philosophical dead point... well that's speaks volumes for your genuine interest in the subject that does.
[think: laws of thermodynamics as a starter]
Any ways for you to acknowledge that someone else has a valid point is virtually impossible as the history of your posts indicate....you dodged and dived over MR's posts even though they had significant merit for example... so what gives Sarkus? Whats the problem?

 

[Sarkus]

How do you feel about the fact that you, and everyone else, spend at least 6 hours (*Ave. generalization) every 24 hours unconscious and in state of being "conscious of nothingness"?
Does Unconsciousness have any reality to you?
Why do I need to bring unconsciousness up when it is obvious and should be already included in any assessment?

You can invoke whatever content you want, but unless you're actually able to show how it is relevant to the debate it is just blowing smoke.
First, being asleep is not generally considered being unconscious, as your body still responds to stimuli. Sleep is better described as an altered state of consciousness.
Be that as it may, your continued equivocation of being "unconscious" with being "conscious of nothing" as if to somehow prove the existence of "nothing" (such that we can be aware of it) is a linguistic conceit, as mentioned in my last post.

How is it we humans can seek and become unconscious?

Given that I don't see sleep as being the same as unconsciousness, I don't think we do seek it.

What does being unconscious mean to all those influences?
Is unconsciousness merely our consciousness becoming the zero in x+(-x) = 0 where by all influences cause and effects are summed out to zero.

It means that those influences are unable to penetrate to the higher functioning parts of the brain, that the necessary feedback loops are not working, and parts of the brain are not interacting as they should in a conscious person.
In your "language" it would be a case of X * 0 = 0.

Why do you think we would loose that ability once we are awake, that is to say, neutralize those influences we see fit to neutralize to facilitate the freedom of our choices?

What "ability" do we lose? Again, I see nothing here other than a conceit of language. Unconsciousness is not an ability; it is the lack of consciousness, and the lack of abilities that require consciousness to operate. We don't gain ability (unless there is some biological process that only operates during states of unconsciousness).

How important are those illusionary causes and effects to someone who is unconscious?

What "illusionary causes and effects" are you referring to?

Ever heard of "self restraint"?

Yes. It is the perceived ability to overcome baser instincts, desires etc. based on a relative viewpoint. It neither supports nor denies the notion of freewill as illusion, as it would be perceived to exist in the same manner irrespective of whether freewill is illusory or not.

well if you can't as you have indicated then what would be the point in explaining further?
(fortunately there are many who can)

As with most things, one can not truthfully acknowledge what one does not see. You have been unable to explain so far why it should be viewed as you view it, and you have so far been unable to address the points raised against it, other than by labouring the same claim.
Fortunately for most education establishments, teachers don't walk out when their pupils fail to acknowledge the importance of what the teacher has not yet shown them.

 

[Sarkus]

I do not wish you to choose to do anything other than that which you choose to do.
You complain that I am jumping to a conclusion yet when presented with the steps needed you simply repeat you claim.. so go figure!

There is nothing in what you have said other than a linguistic conceit. I use that term again because it is the most apt. The absence of something does not create an existence of "nothing" in its place.
[qupte]you feel that x+(-)x=0 is a philosophical dead point... well that's speaks volumes for your genuine interest in the subject that does.
[think: laws of thermodynamics as a starter][/quote]I actually said that is as philosophical as the rest of mathematics, not that it is a philosophical dead point.
And if you're going to throw in the laws of thermodynamics as an example of something, please have the decency to actually explain your point rather than leave me guessing,

Any ways for you to acknowledge that someone else has a valid point is virtually impossible as the history of your posts indicate....you dodged and dived over MR's posts even though they had significant merit for example... so what gives Sarkus? Whats the problem?

The "problem" is that you have simply not provided anything of substance. You might say that your posts have been full of "nothing". You have an idea from which you jump straight to the conclusion, and seem stuck on the profundity of the claim that you do not see that it is based on a linguistic conceit, coupled with equivocation of concepts of zero and "nothing". And that is even before you jump straight to the conclusion, despite repeated calls for you to explain your rationale. But all you have is: "there is nothing: therefore freewill!" I.e. You have claimed that there is plenty of "nothing" in which we have the ability to move... but at no point do you address how we decide in which direction to move, into which area of "nothing" we move into. All you have to say on the matter is "well, that's our freewill!" Yet you fail to see how this is nothing but jumping to the conclusion.

I have been patient with you, QQ. I have painstakingly pointed out what I see as the flaws in your argument (not that there actually is an argument to address given the leap from claim to conclusion). And all you come back with is further examples that compound those flaws, and show that you haven't even understood the criticism. You just bang away with the same line, again and again.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You can invoke whatever content you want, but unless you're actually able to show how it is relevant to the debate it is just blowing smoke.
First, being asleep is not generally considered being unconscious, as your body still responds to stimuli. Sleep is better described as an altered state of consciousness.
Be that as it may, your continued equivocation of being "unconscious" with being "conscious of nothing" as if to somehow prove the existence of "nothing" (such that we can be aware of it) is a linguistic conceit, as mentioned in my last post.
Given that I don't see sleep as being the same as unconsciousness, I don't think we do seek it.

Sleep! Where did I mention the word sleep?
Please explain your new and fashionable use of the words "linguistic conceit" and how you avoid being guilty of exactly what you claim me as being guilty of.

Example:
Cause and effect is a temporal illusion. Is this linguistic conceit according to you?

Unconsciousness : being conscious of "nothing". Is this linguistic conceit according to you?

What I am interested in Sarkus is whether or not you are capable of acknowledging a valid "potential" contra.
One such contra is that Cause and Effect is a temporal illusion and in fact does not exist.
Your position and that of most determinist's is utterly dependent on the reality of cause and effect is it not?

Please show how cause and effect are existent and possibly we can continue this discussion.

The other is how you have introduced the word sleep and then blamed me for it, when I deliberately made no such reference to "sleep" given the huge amount of attributes and aspects associated with it, and the anticipation that you would do anything to dodge and avoid your inability to acknowledge that a meritorious supporting point has been raised.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The first thing to understand is that when someone introduces an unexpected and controversial contra to the debate about the illusion of freewill, a debate that has gone no where for over 100 years or so, that it would have to be expected that the credibility of that contra regardless of how sensible or other wise it is, or even how well it is explained, will be discredited by any means possible.
The reality of self determination of the human will can be proved in a physics yet to be accepted, and in saying so it is not merely a biological illusion of perception but can be logically shown to be a hard cold fact of universal structure. However that physics is unable to be presented in a rational and productive climate, so until then we wait.
The reason why I am effectively teasing in this thread is because it is hoped that in time the overwhelming nature of the truth about this subject will be able to be accommodated with out the paranoid hysterics.

any ways , I just thought I'd mention the above.

IMO it doesn't require any new physics to open some windows of thought any way...

 

[Sarkus]

Sleep! Where did I mention the word sleep?

How else am I meant to take your words: "How do you feel about the fact that you, and everyone else, spend at least 6 hours (*Ave. generalization) every 24 hours unconscious and in state of being "conscious of nothingness"?" if not meaning that we spend, on average, 6 hours a day asleep? If you did not mean sleep then what else is it that everyone spends on average 6 hours a day doing that could possibly be comprehended as being in a "state of being 'conscious of nothingness'?

Please explain your new and fashionable use of the words "linguistic conceit" and how you avoid being guilty of exactly what you claim me as being guilty of.

It is a conceit because you are (deliberately or otherwise) using mere language to suggest that the absence of something equates to the existence of "nothing". While we can speak in those terms, the conceit is that it is such in reality. Just because we can talk about nothing existing, does not mean that "nothingness" exists.
Hence it is a linguistic conceit (although 'linguistic deceit' would have done as well) as it is only possible in language.
I avoid such by being aware of it and choosing not to employ it.

Example:
Cause and effect is a temporal illusion. Is this linguistic conceit according to you?

No. None of those terms or phrases is relying on different meanings within language to create an artificial notion. But even if it is not a linguistic conceit, it is not necessarily something I agree with.

Unconsciousness : being conscious of "nothing". Is this linguistic conceit according to you?

Yes, because being unconscious means to not be capable of awareness, and hence one can not be aware of "nothing". You are using the fact that idioms exist such that "an unconscious person is aware of nothing" to create the conceit that "nothing" exists and that this is what an unconscious person is actually aware of.
Maybe "conceit" is not the right term, but I have hopefully explained what I mean.

What I am interested in Sarkus is whether or not you are capable of acknowledging a valid "potential" contra.

I am. Are you capable of providing any?

One such contra is that Cause and Effect is a temporal illusion and in fact does not exist.
Your position and that of most determinist's is utterly dependent on the reality of cause and effect is it not?

The potential contra would be that cause and effect does not exist.
Whether it is a temporal illusion or not does not, as previously explained, make a difference. If it all happens at t=0 (such that it is our perception only that suggests one follows the other) then it makes no difference as long as cause and effect hold (I.e. everything is caused etc).
If cause and effect does not hold (for whatever reason) then sure, this is a potential contra. All you have to do now is provide support for this notion. Otherwise that is all it is.

Please show how cause and effect are existent and possibly we can continue this discussion.

Drop something. It falls. QED.

The other is how you have introduced the word sleep and then blamed me for it, when I deliberately made no such reference to "sleep" given the huge amount of attributes and aspects associated with it, and the anticipation that you would do anything to dodge and avoid your inability to acknowledge that a meritorious supporting point has been raised.

I introduced it because there is simply nothing else that matches the description you gave: "How do you feel about the fact that you, and everyone else, spend at least 6 hours (*Ave. generalization) every 24 hours unconscious and in state of being "conscious of nothingness"?"
Seriously, how else is someone meant to interpret that if not "sleep"? What else do you think everyone does for 6 hours a day that even comes close.
So if there is an error in equating that to "sleep" then it is because you use hieroglyphs and then complain when someone mistranslates.

 

[Sarkus]

The first thing to understand is that when someone introduces an unexpected and controversial contra to the debate about the illusion of freewill, a debate that has gone no where for over 100 years or so, that it would have to be expected that the credibility of that contra regardless of how sensible or other wise it is, or even how well it is explained, will be discredited by any means possible.

Not true at all. All you are doing here is trying to give credence to your notion by putting it into the company of others. And "by any means possible" is to brush aside the valid criticism given to it, as if it has been littered with foul means rather than fair.
That you can't support your notion from such fair criticism is for you to concern yourself with, rather than try to give it a position wholly unwarranted.
If it one day turns out to be true: great, I'll send you a postcard with an apology. But on the basis of what we currently know, and given your argument (and I use the term loosely) to support your notion, there appears to be nothing of substance.

The reality of self determination of the human will can be proved in a physics yet to be accepted, and in saying so it is not merely a biological illusion of perception but can be logically shown to be a hard cold fact of universal structure. However that physics is unable to be presented in a rational and productive climate, so until then we wait.

If this is your position then it begs the question of why you bother trying to argue your case when you know that you currently have nothing substance other than wishful thinking.

The reason why I am effectively teasing in this thread is because it is hoped that in time the overwhelming nature of the truth about this subject will be able to be accommodated with out the paranoid hysterics.

So you admit you have nothing, and you have in fact been trolling this entire time?
And where do you see any "paranoid hysterics"? Again, you are just trying to give your notion some unwarranted sense of grandeur and importance, when in reality it has nothing to offer... or at least not with the way you have presented it.

IMO it doesn't require any new physics to open some windows of thought any way...

Sure, but it certainly helps when you want to support the soundness of the premise.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The first thing to understand is that when someone introduces an unexpected and controversial contra to the debate about the illusion of freewill, a debate that has gone no where for over 100 years or so, that it would have to be expected that the credibility of that contra regardless of how sensible or other wise it is, or even how well it is explained, will be discredited by any means possible.
The reality of self determination of the human will can be proved in a physics yet to be accepted, and in saying so it is not merely a biological illusion of perception but can be logically shown to be a hard cold fact of universal structure. However that physics is unable to be presented in a rational and productive climate, so until then we wait.
The reason why I am effectively teasing in this thread is because it is hoped that in time the overwhelming nature of the truth about this subject will be able to be accommodated with out the paranoid hysterics.

any ways , I just thought I'd mention the above.

IMO it doesn't require any new physics to open some windows of thought any way...

Actually the only reason people even associated "free" with "will" is purely religious, and/or in debating religious claims. The ancient belief that animals are not "free to choose" is nonsense. That's exactly how females choose the best male for brooding, or how any group of animals chooses an alpha male, etc. It's purely biological. Somehow people got it into their heads that consciousness and "will" have something to do with the debate between physics and religion over Creationism. It's irrelevant. "Will" is a biologically endowed faculty. It's pre-wired in animal brains.