(August 21, 2023 at 10:57 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 21, 2023 at 10:22 am)Ahriman Wrote: [...] the bottom line is that I am now addicted to caffeine, and I just have to live with it, for better or worse.

Addictions can be broken.

(August 21, 2023 at 10:07 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Eitherway, its predetermined and not in any way controllable.

This is an unsupported claim.

(August 21, 2023 at 8:32 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: True.  But you will have ceased to be, and that's a subjectively bad thing, is it not?

Who exists to experience this subjective badness you assert?

True, I haven't supported that claim here. I don't think freewill can exist under a materialist/physicalist worldview. Do you agree with that, but just reject materialism, or do you think it can exist under materialism?

As for who experiences subjective badness, prior to death I (laying aside the issue of identity persistence) experience the negative emotions associated with believing a substantial loss is immanent. After death there will be no I to experience the loss itself, because I will have lost myself (though others may be upset at my dying). The loss only negatively affects me whilst I exist) and others afterwards). But that's a 'bad thing' I'd rather not occur.

(August 21, 2023 at 11:04 am)FrustratedFool Wrote:

(August 21, 2023 at 10:57 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: This is an unsupported claim.

True, I haven't supported that claim here.  I don't think freewill can exist under a materialist/physicalist  worldview.  Do you agree with that, but just reject materialism, or do you think it can exist under materialism?

It matters what you mean by free will. Compatibilist free will may be possible while libertarian free will may not. The question is more whether we have meaningful free will or not, and I think that provides the germ of an argument that we do. The compatibilists argue that the libertarian is mistaken in what makes free will meaningful. Likewise, the libertarian holds that compatibilist free will is not meaningful. The question is what determines which is meaningful to whom. And I don't think that depends upon whether we live in a deterministic universe or not.

A lot comes down to the simple word 'can'. Is it possible that I could choose X instead of Y. Counterfactually, yes. Psychologically, maybe. Ultimately, probably not.

By freewill I mean libertarian freewill. Whether meaningful or not, I don't think libertarian freewill exists and cannot exist under physicalism, and that everything was determined by a prior state of affairs going back to the early universe.

So to me, you could never have chosen X rather than Y regardless of the illusion that you could have.

(August 21, 2023 at 11:26 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: By freewill I mean libertarian freewill.  Whether meaningful or not, I don't think libertarian freewill exists and cannot exist under physicalism, and that everything was determined by a prior state of affairs going back to the early universe.

So to me, you could never have chosen X rather than Y regardless of the illusion that you could have.

I would think the question of whether not having libertarian free will is meaningful would be something a nihilist would answer in the negative.

Depends on the type of nihilist. I'm the type that accepts the existence of the sensation of subjective meaningfulness.

(August 21, 2023 at 11:35 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Depends on the type of nihilist.  I'm the type that accepts the existence of the sensation of subjective meaningfulness.

No, I don't think that's true. Nihilism isn't about personal meaning, so regardless of whether it has subjective meaning or not, you would still answer in the negative or you're using nihilism in an unconventional way.

When it comes to free will, I'm a compatibilist. Free will might technically exist, but we do not have a meaningful degree of free will. Our choices are ultimately scripted, although we can still "decide" what to do, within an incredibly limited range of possible actions, and at no point during any of that "doing stuff" are we ever free to make a choice that was not going to happen anyway.

@Angrboda

I'm using nihilism in a way it seems it can be used from Wikipedia and IEP. That may be an unconventional usage. Regardless, its how I mean it. If you think my POV is better labelled as something else, I'm open to hearing alternatives.

(August 21, 2023 at 3:02 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(August 21, 2023 at 2:11 am)MarcusA Wrote: Let me see if I get this right: Shame is the worst, therefore it's the best. Jesus, talk about it.

It's complicated. You would know if you had seen what I've seen.

(August 21, 2023 at 3:11 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(August 21, 2023 at 3:05 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: C-beams glittering in the dark off the tannhauser gate.

I'm pretty sure the last time you struggled it was to escape the womb Ahri, lol.  Horrifying.

You haven't suffered a day in your life. At least not compared to me.

You can always find someone who suffers more than you. It's not a game. "Suffering" is inherent to life, and the types of suffering and the degrees of it vary across people, cultures, and time. We can play a game where we try to out-suffer the other to determine who has truly had it worse, or you can drop the idea entirely.

I'm confused about your "shame" posts. What is your definition of shame? Why would you enjoy feeling shameful?

(August 21, 2023 at 12:01 pm)Ahriman Wrote: When it comes to free will, I'm a compatibilist. Free will might technically exist, but we do not have a meaningful degree of free will. Our choices are ultimately scripted, although we can still "decide" what to do, within an incredibly limited range of possible actions, and at no point during any of that "doing stuff" are we ever free to make a choice that was not going to happen anyway.

I think of the human mind as a computer or AI learning model. Contemporary understanding of psychology and neurobiology indicates that ages 0 through 9 are crucial development years - this is the period that your mind learns what it is and how to behave. It then utilizes this data and applies it to everything you ever go through for the rest of your life. If you had a lovely childhood with perfect upbringing, this is great news. If you had a traumatic upbringing, this is terrible news. This is the code your brain uses to figure things out.

Practically speaking, I think free will can only be exercised once you've understood that your mind is operating on the code set early in your life. The only way to understand this for yourself, truly, is to see a therapist and/or meditate on a regular basis. If you don't acknowledge you have a code, you cannot change it, and you're doomed to react the same to similar situations your entire life. If you want to create real change in your life, you need to understand the code your mind developed when you were young. I think change is possible only after that point. 

The vast majority of people go through life letting their subconscious make decisions for them without ever really pondering what is causing their thoughts and decisions. So, in a way, these people do not have free will.

On a purely logical level, I'm betting none of this is true. I'm likely being careless with terms like "free will" and "deterministic." There likely is no free will, everything has been set in motion long ago and my thoughts or actions are just one tiny sliver of this massive predetermined chain of cause and effect. But the neat thing is - I can choose not to care or think about it, and instead think about it the way I've presented.