Posts by Mark Torres14

dustyskipper3 said:

I suppose I should mention... servantes. It’s a bit of an old-fashioned term, isn't it? I think it refers to those little side tables, the ones that sit tucked away near a chair. Maybe they were more common back in the day, during some older era of American furniture design. I guess they serve a purpose, though. Just a small surface for a drink or a book. It feels somewhat quaint, I suppose. Very quiet. Very unassuming. Not much else to say on the matter, really. kaže:
The question, I suppose, is what we actually mean when we use the word conscious. It’s a bit of a heavy concept, isn't it? I guess there's a lot of room for interpretation there, maybe even more than we realize at first glance.🤷
If we are talking about reason, I suppose one really ought to maintain some kind of distance from oneself, considering that the entire universe essentially constitutes "it." This feels... different, perhaps, than the typical detachment a person experiences from the surrounding reality. Furthermore, this implies that the natural laws we observe act as evidence of this greater "consciousness," which leads me to think—though I might be wrong—that this cosmic reason and consciousness isn't quite the same thing as human consciousness. Which, if you think about it, means we truly haven't a clue. Or, to put it more simply, reality functions as a "hidden variable," and the furthest we can reasonably reach is just the anthropic principle.

String theory... it presents quite a few hurdles for philosophical inquiry, I suppose. It’s all very complex, isn't it? One might think that reducing everything to tiny, vibrating strings would simplify our understanding of reality, but maybe it actually complicates things even further. There are these deep questions about the nature of existence and whether mathematics can truly capture the essence of what we call "real." I guess it leads down some pretty long rabbit holes regarding causality and the structure of the universe. It's a lot to wrap one's head around, really.
So, if you take the idea that a graviton acts like an open string—which, according to theory, is basically the only particle out there existing across multiple dimensions and acting as a bridge between them—you can sort of draw a parallel to consciousness. I guess we could view consciousness as this "thing" that exists within higher dimensions, especially since we just can't seem to explain it through a simple dialectical chain of cause and effect. It's all very circular, I suppose. This brings up a lot of dilemmas, really. What exactly is the role of mathematics here? It seems like such an undeniable tool for trying to grasp this irrational, unconscious reality surrounding us. And then there's the question of what kind of emergent tool we might use to actually pinpoint where consciousness sits within that reality. Maybe... maybe what we’re actually grasping at is that concept we call "will." Or something like that.

The holographic universe... I suppose it’s one of those concepts that just keeps circling back into my mind lately. It feels somewhat overwhelming, if I'm being honest. There is this idea—this theory—that everything we perceive as three-dimensional reality might actually be a projection from information stored on a distant, two-dimensional boundary. Like a hologram. It sounds almost too strange to grasp, doesn't it? I mean, we walk around, we interact with things, we feel the weight of objects, yet there's this possibility that it's all just data being projected outward. Maybe it's just a mathematical curiosity, or maybe it's the fundamental truth of our existence. I don't know. It’s hard to say for sure, but I find myself wondering about the implications of it all quite often. Just a thought, I guess.
Personally, I find that it sparks quite a bit of controversy, I suppose. It's just... well, it tends to stir things up, maybe more than one would expect.
The two-dimensional nature of a black hole's event horizon really stems from the fact that there's a singularity sitting right at the center. Because of that, I suppose a black hole doesn't actually exist as a physical object in any traditional sense; we’re really just observing its consequence—the horizon itself. If a singularity truly exists, though—which, personally, I don't quite believe—then it would have to exist outside of our universe entirely. On the other hand, a singularity implies either a total lack of symmetry or, in an extreme case, a state of perfect symmetry. That seems to conflict with what we know... I mean, it's pretty much an established fact that symmetry is one of the most fundamental and powerful tools we use to gauge whether our scientific theories are actually true. Or at least, that's how I see it.
I suppose... if one were to consider the nature of consciousness—and that underlying will that seems to drive our awareness—one might wonder what could serve as an analogy to a black hole. It’s a heavy thought, I guess. Perhaps there is something within the human psyche that acts similarly to a gravitational singularity. Maybe it's that core impulse, that raw, unformed drive that pulls everything toward it, leaving nothing behind but the sheer force of being. I don't know, it's probably just a speculative thought, but I find myself wondering if the very thing that defines us is also the thing that consumes us.😕

I suppose my theory regarding the universe functioning as a massive computer would involve incorporating this concept of a "quantum vacuum" as a foundational logical element—essentially the raw bits of quantum information from which everything else emerges. It’s a bit like saying that through the act of thinking, one actually constructs their own brain. Or, more specifically, that logical operations occurring within the fabric of space-time generate subatomic particles, which then serve as the physical hardware for this cosmic quantum computer. In this view, when a logical operation takes place, particles are either being generated or canceled out, and energy is similarly being created or dissipated. I guess it’s all just interconnected, maybe.

I suppose I should probably weigh in here, though I’m not entirely sure if my perspective carries much weight on this particular subject. It seems like there’s a bit of a consensus forming, but then again, maybe I’m just misreading the room. Regarding what dustyskipper3 mentioned earlier... I feel like we might be overlooking the broader implications of how these regulations are being implemented at the federal level. It’s not just about the immediate cost, I guess. If you look at how major corporations like Walmart or Amazon handle these kinds of shifts in policy, it’s rarely just a simple matter of compliance. There’s a whole layer of logistical maneuvering that happens behind the scenes, which most people don't really see. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I find myself wondering if the current approach by the Department of Labor is actually going to achieve the intended goal, or if it will just create more red tape for small businesses in places like Ohio or Pennsylvania. It feels a bit... complicated. Perhaps too complicated for a quick fix. I don't know. I could be wrong, of course.

I suppose... if we look at gravitons as being closest to the quantum vacuum, then when they emerge from that vacuum, they essentially possess zero entropy. It leads me to think—and I might be wrong here—that a "singularity" is actually just a graviton, which would be the equivalent of a single outcome in four-valued logic. In this view, a black hole is really nothing more than gravity itself, and nothing else. Maybe the asymmetry we see in the laws of nature stems from the direct link between gravitons and the quantum vacuum; specifically, the idea that gravity arises from absolutely nothing, whereas other particles and quarks actually require some sort of "something" to exist. I guess that’s how the imbalance happens. 😬

I suppose... if we are looking at it from a certain angle, the concept of "will" might be the closest thing we have to gravity in the natural world. It feels like that most fundamental force existing just before everything descends into total nothingness—sort of like dark energy, which, as we all know, is what drives the expansion of the universe. I guess it’s just one of those basic building blocks of existence. Maybe.

I can't get behind this. This idea you laid out in the link below is just one variation of a religious view of God. Except now God is the entire universe, science just observes the flow of information between different parts of this massive super-brain, and instead of Ten Commandments, you have the laws of physics. The "priesthood" isn't purely religious anymore—it's some weird hybrid of experimentation and faith.
But why does life even exist?
Personally, I'm interested in a "philosophical God." A God I can actually wrap my head around. If I can't understand it, it doesn't exist to me.
So, who gets it right? Me, the majority, or everyone?

Gravitons are closest to the quantum vacuum, and when they emerge from it, they have zero entropy. So, a "singularity" is just a graviton, which is basically the result of a single logical operation in four-valued logic. A black hole is nothing more than gravity. The asymmetry in natural laws comes from the direct link between gravitons and the quantum vacuum—the fact that "gravity comes from nothing," while other particles and quarks actually have to come from "something."😬

How does it come from nothing? 😕Gravity requires mass. Why does mass exist? The law of conservation of energy should apply to gravity too. If it doesn't, there better be proof of it acting outside this world, or evidence that the law is being broken. Do we have any actual proof?

The concept of "will" would then be most similar to the concept of "gravity" in nature. It’s the most elemental thing before total nothingness, dark energy (which, as we see, drives the expansion of the universe).

No. The question of "will" should be on the same level as asking "Why is everything in motion?"
That's more fundamental than gravitons as particles or gravity as spacetime curvature.

dustyskipper3 said:Well, what if the universe itself is conscious, but at a level we don't typically perceive in this material plane where we live? I think string theory offers a good path toward explaining consciousness, and therefore will, etc., but since this is philosophy, we should probably avoid getting tangled up in overly technical explanations handled by physicists, like Einstein and that crowd. My own thoughts on how life and consciousness emerge from string theory and quantum gravity remain mostly at the level of these musings about quantum computers and the "ghost in the machine" type of spirituality.

If I get the time, maybe I’ll look into this a bit more deeply and flesh it out. The point is, not many people actually know how quantum computers really work. I know someone who works directly with them, but even they probably wouldn't know how to bridge the gap between that and general reflections on the nature of consciousness and the cosmos. And maybe you are also thinking of the anthropic principle, which some suggest is implied by string theory; so, if that theory holds true, does it mean the universe must be designed such that humans and our consciousness eventually have to emerge?

The idea of the string theory landscape has been used to propose a concrete implementation of the anthropic principle, the idea that fundamental constants may have the values they have not for fundamental physical reasons, but rather because such values are necessary for life (and hence intelligent observers to measure the constants).

To understand that, one should look into the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compactification_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_landscape

👋

The real question is: what do we actually mean when we say "conscious"?🤷
If we’re talking about reason, you have to maintain some distance from yourself, considering the entire universe essentially *is* that reason. That’s a different beast entirely than the gap between a human being and the reality surrounding them. It implies that natural laws are basically evidence of this cosmic "consciousness." From there, it follows that this universal reason isn't the same thing as human consciousness—which means we don't have a clue what's actually going on. To put it bluntly: reality is just a "hidden variable," and the absolute furthest we can reach is the anthropic principle.
Quincy:

I think string theory is a solid path for explaining consciousness and free will. But since we’re talking philosophy here, let's not get bogged down in the heavy technical jargon that physicists like Hawking and his crew obsess over. My theories on how life and consciousness emerge from string theory and quantum gravity are still in the same headspace as those discussions about quantum computing and the "soul in the machine" stuff you see on spirituality forums.

String theory throws a massive wrench into everything we think we know about philosophy. It's a headache.
Think about the graviton as an open string. According to theory, it’s the only particle that actually exists across multiple dimensions, acting as the bridge between them. We can look at consciousness the same way—as something existing in higher dimensions, especially since we can't explain it through a simple chain of cause and effect. That opens up a massive can of worms. What's the actual role of mathematics here? It's clearly just a tool used to grasp a reality that is both irrational and unconscious. So, what kind of emergent tool could we possibly use to pinpoint exactly where consciousness sits within that reality? Is it possible that what we call "will" is actually the answer?

The holographic universe.
Personally, that stuff just stirs up too much controversy for me.
A black hole’s event horizon is two-dimensional because there's a singularity at its core. That’s the whole point: the black hole itself isn't really an object we can interact with; we're just seeing the fallout—the horizon. If a singularity actually exists—which, personally, I don't buy—then it would have to exist outside our universe entirely. Plus, a singularity implies a state of broken symmetry, or in some extreme cases, perfect symmetry. That flies in the face of common sense. Symmetry is one of our most powerful tools for verifying if a theory holds water, and you can't just toss that out the window.
What would be the black hole equivalent when you're thinking about consciousness and the very will that drives it?😕

dustyskipper3 said:I mean, sure, all that makes sense. But for me, there’s something even more fundamental than will, and that would be the basic survival instinct of a living organism. That's what actually pushes back against the entropy of the universe, eventually leading to the death of the being (when it finally levels out with the universe's entropy). Will is about having choices; a being can choose a bigger or smaller risk to reach a specific goal. But a creature driven purely by survival instinct always has to pick the path that offers the highest chance of staying alive. For example, based on those old experiments with acids and bases, an amoeba probably doesn't have "will"—it mechanically has to move away from whatever threatens it, regardless of whether there's food nearby. A crab, though, maybe doesn't have to. It might try to hunt a little fish even if an octopus is lurking nearby. So, I guess will is just one step higher in the spiritual evolution of living things—a higher dimension of consciousness compared to just floating around and waiting, which is what lower organisms do. Humans, however, possess what we call "free will," which means "choosing between good and evil," but it really means a human has a will that can actually override the survival instinct. In a way, humans are rationally capable of self-destruction, whereas animals aren't (though a dog might die of heartbreak over its owner, or a bird for its mate, etc.). I think that explains my stance.

If I were to take this further, I guess you could conclude that besides physical dimensions (which are likely 4 [space-time] + 2 [multiverse] plus two more "completely outside of space and time," making eight—though some argue there are ten, check out http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/t...ons_of_reality), there are also spiritual dimensions applied to living beings. These might be 1) being/survival instinct; 2) will; 3) information/cognition; 4) movement/change/evolution; 5) creation/energy; 6) nothingness/vacuum; 7) potential; 8) consciousness. Well, maybe that sounds a bit too mystical to you, but I'm only mentioning it to show that, in my view, will ranks pretty low on the spiritual ladder.

Alright. Looks like we’re coming at this from totally different angles.
To me, will is just any living thing—conscious or not—deciding to do something that wouldn't happen through purely "natural" means in that exact moment. That’s the absolute baseline. It’s even lower than that survival instinct you keep bringing up. At this level, all we can really argue about is whether will exists before it actually turns into an action. Let's use your example: did an amoeba have some kind of mental image or just a raw reflex before it moved? To me, every single reflex, no matter how basic, counts as will.
The free will you’re talking about is tied directly to humans—or any complex living thing that actually possesses consciousness.
Quincy:

If you dig deeper, you could argue that dimensions go way beyond just physical ones. Sure, you’ve got the standard four—space and time—plus two more for the multiverse. Then there are those other two that exist entirely outside of space and time altogether. That brings us to eight. Honestly, some people even push it to ten. Just look at what Quincy says about it. I can't access external links directly to read that specific blog post. If you paste the text here, I will immediately rewrite it for you following all your instructions: keeping that blunt, punchy, combative tone, swapping everything to a US setting, and using the mandatory name replacements. Send the text over and I'll get to work.Look, there are spiritual dimensions that apply to all living things. We're talking about: 1) the survival instinct; 2) will; 3) information and perception; 4) movement, change, and evolution; 5) creation and energy; 6) the void; 7) potential; and 8) consciousness. Maybe that sounds too mystical for you, but I’m only bringing it up to point out one thing: when it comes to my own "will," I'm ranking pretty low on that spiritual ladder.

It feels a little too much like a movie.
I’m genuinely curious about one thing: can we take that eleven-dimensional world from string theory—you know, the one that exists co-existently, even if it's just mathematically—and actually use it to define what life is? And by extension, what consciousness really is?

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose, if we just look at it simply, free will is really just the capacity to choose between various different paths. Some choices might increase entropy—you know, create more disorder—while others tend to decrease it, creating order. I guess it might be a bit much to claim that pure willpower alone can establish order, because... well, maybe you'd need some level of perception or intelligence to actually pull that off. And then again, even a computer establishes order, but it’s strictly following its programming, so it doesn't truly have any choice beyond what was coded into it by the developer.

I see it differently.
Disorder is disorder. At any given moment, we're facing a maximum level of chaos that only keeps growing. That's entropy.
No matter how hard we try, our "will" can't make things more chaotic than they already are. Chaos exists independently of us. Every single intentional move we make actually fights against entropy and creates some form of order—even when we're trying our best to cause mayhem.
Will is just the desire to break away from entropic inevitability. It’s like a leaf caught in a river in Cleveland trying to swim upstream. The river is still carrying it, but the leaf feels like it's battling the entire universe.
So, order isn't the opposite of disorder. It’s just a part of it, shaped by the most mysterious thing in our universe: life.

dustyskipper3 said:Why couldn't there also be an inherent drive toward creating chaos? :general woo and mess:

Like what?

Joshua Hernandez9 said:Alright.

Picture someone dealing with OCD—someone who gets this uncontrollable, internal itch to "organize everything."
An urge they just can't switch off.

In a case like that, would you say their "will" is actually baked into the disorder itself, or is it found in the struggle to resist that drive to make everything perfect?

You missed the point.
I'm talking about the broadest possible definition of will. It applies to everything—humans and viruses alike.
Will is clearly a hallmark of life. Everything else just follows the laws of physics.
Every living thing is its own version of order.
To even stay alive, you have to constantly maintain your own internal order.
That’s exactly why will is the necessity of maintaining that order.

Joshua Hernandez9 said:What kind of order though?

Anywhere.
You don't need to add anything to chaos.
If you want to make order, you actually have to work for it.

Let's give this a shot.
The whole idea is just about trying to bring some order to the chaos.

"Fate is just a friendlier way of saying coincidence."☕

mistyscout2 said:Well, I suppose a Swede has to learn English too, right? 😉But I think I get what you’re getting at—that it requires more effort. Personally, I don't think it's necessarily a much bigger hurdle. It really just comes down to how motivated you are, if you actually love the language, how much you'�re exposed to it, and how intensely you use it. For instance, most people from the Midwest or the South wouldn't understand a lick of Canadian, whereas to me, Canadian feels almost like my mother tongue. I mean, not quite right this second since I'm not hearing it much lately, but I remember years ago when I used to watch a lot of movies on TV—specifically from Canada—that if I wasn't paying close attention, I could hardly tell if I was watching an American or a Canadian program. That said, you can't exactly say the languages are *that* similar (like maybe certain dialects within the US). At the end of the day, it's mostly just a matter of habit.

Fine. You and Soul are both right. But I wasn't bringing up language just for the sake of linguistics or how easy it is to pick up. It was just a comparison. In the US, kids start learning foreign languages in preschool. In Sweden, they don't start until they're ten. Why? Is the Swedish school system more primitive than ours, or are our kids just geniuses compared to theirs?😁
We're talking about the education system here, aren't we?🤷

By the way, back when I was in college, I used to "translate" for a buddy of mine from Indianapolis who was studying literature in the "Group"

mistyscout2 said:I don't think that's all that surprising, honestly, especially when you consider that both English and Swedish are Germanic languages. They share so many common word roots, and since the syntax isn't drastically different, I imagine a Swede wouldn't have much trouble picking up English.

I'm with you on that. But look, American and Russian are both Slavic languages and share plenty of roots too, yet you still have to actually sit down and learn it.

Olivia Evans8 said:

Wait, are we really talking about servantes? Like, the actual concept? Because if we are... oh man... that opens up such a massive rabbit hole! I honestly could go on about this for hours... just thinking about how it all ties together... it's wild! Seriously though, let's dive in... kaže:
Man, I still remember back in '66 when I started first grade... we spent the entire year just grinding away at uppercase and lowercase letters. That was it! Just ABCs all day long...

When I say logic, I’m not talking about some boring math equation, okay? I mean the actual game of it! You gotta use simple little games to show them basic concepts first. Then, you slowly layer on the complexity, getting more and more precise until they finally land on the actual definition. Because honestly, what is a kid even going to do with a textbook definition? My brother was stuck in third grade being forced to memorize these super technical definitions for things like "media," "television," and "the TV set." Like, seriously? Do you even know the difference between a television and the concept of television? By the time you're 30 or 40, sure, you get it. But at nine years old? It’s just exhausting... and totally boring...

So, think about it... from elementary all the way through high school, they basically throw a massive pile of subjects at you, just hoping one of them actually sticks. But honestly, is that even the right way to do things? Ever since my freshman year, I knew math was the only thing that actually clicked for me. Everything else? Total snooze fest. But I still had to grind out those grades and waste so much precious time mastering stuff I’m probably never going to use in the real world. It feels like such a waste... I know so many bright people who totally burned out trying to chase this "well-rounded education" dream, and because of that, they ended up way less prepared for the careers they actually love. It's such a double-edged sword, though... you could learn everything and maybe find a passion, but man...

How am I even supposed to find the headspace to actually critique my physics experiments when I'm stuck drowning in textbooks about Abraham Lincoln, trying to memorize the US GDP, and reading endless stuff about the Romans... seriously...

It’s a shame nobody else bothered to respond to my post except you.
The whole point is that our approach to education is fundamentally different from how today's younger generations are taught. On one hand, things used to be stricter—call it "brutal" if you want—but on the other, we weren't bogged down by a mountain of useless definitions or pressured by frustrated parents and a society trying to manufacture a "finished product" overnight. I know I might sound like one of those people claiming "the old days were better," but after surviving the grind of high school, I truly believe our elementary schools and my classical prep school—with all the Latin and Greek—were much better than what we have now.
For example, it surprised me that little Swedish kids don't learn a foreign language at all until the fourth grade. They don't start until something like our fifth grade. Interestingly enough, more than half of the Swedes speak perfect English.

Olivia Evans8 said:The real issue is that school basically acts like a mandatory knowledge dump that everyone’s forced to swallow. Sure, actually *understanding* things is the goal, but if you're slammed for time, just grinding through memorization is "good enough." There's zero room left for actual deep thinking or building up your intellect. It gets pushed aside as this "nice-to-have" thing rather than a necessity...

If we’re being idealists about it, education should be a lifelong journey where you're constantly being nudged in the right direction starting from elementary school (or even earlier!) with all this extra layers of knowledge. Like, kids in first grade should already be getting a taste of logic and critical thinking—developing those essential life skills that aren't part of the standard curriculum. Everyone loves to bash "philosophers" these days, but they totally miss the point that healthy, critical thinking about everything... is actually healthy!

So, school isn't necessarily making people stupid because there's nothing there to make them dumb... it just fails to give them enough to work with.

Back when I started first grade in 1966, we spent the entire year just learning uppercase and lowercase letters. We’d write two or three pages of nothing but the letter B—sometimes even as punishment. We used this little dictionary made of loose slips of paper with letters on them that we had to piece together. Counting was basic, mostly done through games. Twice a week, we’d head out to the local park during school hours and play until we dropped. Once a week, our teacher would read us a book (The Very Hungry Caterpillar, then full books from the Dr. Seuss collection... etc.). That was the quietest we ever were; we lived for those reading sessions. Our reader was called "You Are My Sunshine" and it was almost entirely poems for kids. Stuff like "All Birds in the Forest" or "Antuntun".
We had to wear house shoes in the classroom, and if you misbehaved? You got the switch across your palms or made you kneel in the corner facing the wall. If you ran to your parents about it, they’d just beat you again for complaining. I mean, who dares cross a teacher? You didn't need to know how to read, write, or count just to start first grade.

Having three kids of my own, I've sat through three more "first grades," and honestly, they look way harder than mine was. Kids today have to know how to count, write, and read, all while learning foreign languages and juggling sailing, swimming, ballet, basketball, or music lessons. A seven-year-old comes home and still has two or three hours of homework. And at every parent-teacher conference I've attended over twenty years, the teachers hammer it in: you need to work with your kid for at least two hours a day. Multiply that by three kids—that's six hours of tutoring a day I'm supposed to be doing.

Funny thing is, nobody ever worked with me or showed me the ropes. Extra help was like a banana—reserved for the rich kids or the ones who couldn't grasp the material no matter how hard they tried.

Every time I jump into a debate on this forum, I walk away feeling like a total amateur. It’s like I’m constantly unread and out of the loop when it comes to actual philosophy or specific schools of thought. Someone always drops a book title I’ve never heard of, cites an author I barely recognize, or calls my logic basic compared to, say, the way Žižek's sentences twist and turn to catch you off guard.
If you wanted to build a foundation today—something to read, watch, or listen to—so you could honestly call yourself an intellectual on the level of Ernest Hemingway, where would you even start?
Personally, no matter how hard I try, I just can't seem to get there.
Just when I think I’ve finally grasped something, some N'dugu or that quiet, spotted user shows up and shuts me right back down to earth.😍

Olivia Evans8 said:I totally disagree, mostly because my reflexes AREN'T my will. Like, if someone snaps their fingers right in front of my face, I blink automatically. That's not me choosing to do anything!

Actually, it's the opposite. Any experience of "self" inherently includes the experience of free will.

So why don't I feel that sense of freedom then? Is it just because I'm not any different from everyone else?

The issue is that once we start digging into *why* we did something, we run straight into causality (determinism). That ultimate cause is transcendent, which is exactly why Kant denies that metaphysics is even possible. Everything has a cause except for that final one—that abstract mind that makes us who we are.
If we wanted to make this symmetrical, we'd say everything has its own symmetry except for the human mind, which is—get this—singular and unique.
Why is there only one of those, while everything else, every creature and phenomenon, exists in multiples?

But honestly? I refuse to call that "will." I'm calling it what it actually is—pure randomness.

But your reflex *is* your will. Your brain makes the call in a fraction of a second. Or do you honestly think every single "free will" move requires a conscious, deliberate thought process?
Does dreaming count as free will then?

In that case, I refuse to call that "will." I'll call it what it actually is—randomness.

So basically, will doesn't exist. It's just something that happens the moment a change occurs. Everything before that is just randomness. But then what even is randomness?

Olivia Evans8 said:Oh, it definitely exists! Just look at instinct, a reflex, or even just basic physical movement. The only thing special about "will" is that it feels subjective, but that doesn't mean it's fundamentally different from those other things.

The experience of being "you" never actually involves free will, just... will. Like, I might want to head to the kitchen for a drink, but whether I actually have the *will* to get up and do it... that's a different story...

It’s not instinct, it’s not a reflex, and it’s definitely not just "matter in motion." We aren't talking about free will here—we're talking about *will*. Non-will would be absolute stillness. Everything else falls under the umbrella of will, including reflexes. Unless you're talking about a ball bouncing off a wall. That isn't will; that's just a consequence.

The experience of self never involves free will, just... will. I want to go grab a drink in the kitchen, but whether I actually have the will to do it... that depends.

Exactly the opposite. The experience of self always includes the experience of free will. The problem is that when we try to analyze *why* we did something, we run into causality (determinism). The ultimate cause is transcendent, which is why Kant denies that metaphysics is even possible. Everything has a cause, except for that final one—the abstract mind that defines us.
If we wanted to look at this through symmetry, we'd say everything has its own symmetry except for the human mind, which is, get this, singular and unique.
Why is there only one of those, while everything else—all other things, beings, and phenomena—exists in multiples?

Jacob Chavez36 said:I mean, we deal with unfree will every single day. We head into a Target or a Walmart thinking we're choosing exactly what we want, but most of the time, we're just falling for some clever ad campaign or a subtle suggestion. Our "decision" is really just a reaction to manipulation that we might even be aware of, yet we don't bother fighting back. That’s conditioned will, not free will.

But then again, reason is something we're taught, which suggests it isn't inherently free either. I guess you need a bit of actual free will to want to crack that shell and see what's actually going on underneath the surface.

Break through what, exactly?

Olivia Evans8 said:But what even is "reason"? Can you actually give me a real-world example of rational versus irrational thinking? At the end of the day, there's just "I would do this" and "I wouldn't do that"—subjective labels humans slapped onto things and called them rational or irrational. I mean, if reason involves processing info and making decisions, doesn't the word "rational" itself point straight back toward determinism? Or better yet, if you have several equally logical choices based on the exact same data, isn't picking one over the others just totally arbitrary... which makes it irrelevant to the concept of "will"?

I could explain reason using determinism by arguing that consciousness is just a byproduct of our brains, and since brains follow deterministic laws—even if I'm not doing that right now, nothing stops me!

Can you honestly tell me where in your own life you've actually felt free will in action? And how would you even recognize the feeling of *not* having it? What's the actual difference that makes us need to add that "free" label in the first place?

Look, staying on topic: reason is the phenomenon that lets us step back and look at our own "self" from the outside. You can't even wrap your head around freedom—or by extension, will—without that ability to view your own existence in relation to everything else, both the imaginable and the unthinkable.
We’ve hit on this countless times, and I think we’re mostly on the same page here. Talking about "free will" automatically assumes there's such a thing as "unfree will"—conditioned will—as its equal opposite. It forces us into a binary where we can't imagine anything beyond a simple North vs. South divide.
But we haven't actually tackled the core concept of "will" itself, which is way more complex and vital. In all this, "freedom" is just being treated as an adjective.
Is there such a thing as the negation of will? A "non-will"?

Olivia Evans8 said:

Hey guys! Just wanted to jump in here and share some thoughts on what’s been going on lately... honestly, things are moving so fast! It feels like every single day there's some new update or shift that catches us all off guard. But hey, that's just how it goes sometimes, right? I'm staying super pumped about where everything is heading though! Everything feels so high-energy lately... it's kind of wild if you think about it! Anyway, just my two cents! Catch you all later... kaže:
Wait, who is Alexander?... Seriously, does anyone actually know the deal with him?... I'm totally lost here!
The whole thing boils down to this... he’s basically hardwired to be violent. It’s baked right into his DNA, and honestly? That upbringing didn't help one bit either...

So, Alex is basically the main man in *A Clockwork Orange*. And honestly? Yeah, he’s totally programmed from the jump. But even with all that extra brainwashing stuff they throw at him, it barely touches his actual will... I mean, it's like nothing more than a tiny little wasp sting to him...

So, I was just thinking about those little kitchen helpers—you know, the ones we call servantes? Honestly, they’re such a lifesaver when you're trying to keep things organized during a massive Sunday brunch or something... Just having that extra surface area makes everything feel so much smoother! It’s like having a tiny assistant right there on the counter... total game changer for anyone who loves to cook without the chaos... kaže:
Look, I totally get the definition! I really do...
So, I've been chewing on this idea...
Look, if there’s actually some kind of master algorithm out there—you know, a code that can predict exactly how anything behaves because it’s baked right into the core of what we call life... then free will is basically a myth. It just wouldn't exist. Everything would be predetermined... totally scripted...
Look, here’s the thing... if there isn’t some kind of underlying algorithmic code driving everything, then yeah, maybe free will is a real thing. But if that’s the case, then what we call "life" basically ceases to exist. It's a total paradox! Like, how does that even work??????
So, basically, when we talk about free will, we’re really just talking about degrees, right? It’s like a sliding scale... and honestly, I feel like we're the ones drawing those lines ourselves. Because, if I'm following your logic, you're looking at free will as this thing that happens after we make a rational choice—regardless of whatever crazy chain reaction actually triggered that decision in the first place...
So, if we’re assuming that free will only exists because we have reason, then we could basically circle back to the start of this whole thing and say that reason is the total opposite of a program... right? Is that really how it works though? I mean... maybe...

No way! My biggest gripe with all those people out there preaching about free will is that absolutely nobody actually gets it... How's it going?... It’s all about the will making those calls. Honestly, "reason" is just some arbitrary label we slap on things, kind of like how people toss around the word "freedom"—it's such a vague, empty descriptor that doesn't actually tell you much. So, what even counts as an irrational will or an irrational decision? Can you actually show me the difference...?

Honestly, all we’re ever really doing is making moves based on whatever half-baked info we happen to have on hand at the moment... It’s kind of wild when you think about it! There isn't even a massive difference between acting smart and acting totally reckless. We all just hide behind our own logic, pretending we’ve got it all figured out by listing off all those specific variables that led to the choice (you know, our "knowledge") and how we actually landed on it—whether that process was super calculated or just completely random... It's all just a bit of a facade!

So, you're asking how the lack of an algorithm somehow proves life isn't real? That's a wild one... seriously! Like, where do we even start with that logic? It’s such a trip to think about... honestly! If you're looking at the universe like it's just a bunch of math or some giant computer program, then yeah, I get why someone would say if there's no code, there's no "player." But man, that's such a narrow way to look at things! Life isn't just lines of code running on a server somewhere... it's messy, it's loud, and it's totally unpredictable! Even if there wasn't a pre-set script or some master algorithm guiding every single atom, that doesn't mean we aren't actually *here* feeling everything. Reality doesn't need a formula to be valid... it just exists! It's all about the experience, right? Just pure, unscripted chaos... and honestly, that's the best part!

But you’re still totally failing to justify why freedom even matters in this whole debate! Like, seriously... We have will, that's just an obvious fact at this point. But what does "freedom" actually add to the equation? It doesn't change anything! And hey, we could just as easily say we have "graceful will" and it would be just as logical. Because let's be real—human nature isn't some fixed, unchangeable thing, and saying someone "can" do something doesn't mean any more than just saying "I'm thinking about doing something"...

You're dead wrong. Reason is the prerequisite for free will. Without reason, you're just looking at pure determinism. That’s exactly why Kant rejects metaphysics. You can explain everything through determinism except for reason itself.
Maybe free will is just a crude approximation of determinism. Like shadows on the wall in Plato's cave?

says:
Go look at Wikipedia if you want definitions. My point is this: if we can precisely define how matter behaves, then that description becomes a program.

I know what a definition is.
Here’s my actual thought:
If there's any kind of algorithmic program used to predict how anything behaves—and that program is at the core of what we call life—then free will is impossible.
On the flip side, if there is no algorithm at the foundation of life, then free will might exist, but "life" as we know it wouldn't. Paradox? Maybe.
Basically, we could only talk about free will in terms of degrees, where humans are essentially just drawing the line for where those gradients sit. I'm assuming we're talking about free will as a byproduct of rational decision-making, regardless of whatever caused that decision in the first place.
If free will requires reason to exist, then going back to my original point, is reason actually the direct opposite of a program? Is that really how it works?