Do you believe in free will?

[Perhaps]

It seems like you haven't put nay thought into this at all. You are essentially putting forward a circular proposition.

1. I exist in reality.
2. Reality exists in my mind.
3. My mind exists in me.

You premise itself is illogical. You cannot hope to prove anything using this premise because proof presupposes an objective existence of reality.

You missed my first premise.

1. The mind (which gives 'me' the ability to have identity) exists in the true material world
2. The mind creates reality
3. I (the mind) exist in the reality which I create
4. Thus, because I have created it, I have free will in my reality

This would be analogous to an individual who is blind. They exist in the 'material world', yet their perception creates blackness all around them. They live within this blackness.

The real question to ask here, past the validity of free will, would be what's the fucking point? Even if I do possess free will, it doesn't change the fact that nothing matters and that their is no point. It just means that I'm responsible for what I do, but responsible to what or who? If its morally related to the other minds then there still remains no point, because when I cease to exist I won't be able to even care. Ultimately we are worthless and without purpose - that's what erks me most about my existence.

---

Way too easy.

1. Reality is what exists independently from any ideas about it. (Tautologically true)
2. If mind creates reality then it is not independent of the mind's ideas about it.

Therefore, mind does not create reality.

You use logic (which is created by the mind) to attempt to disprove my supposition that the mind creates reality. I know you're better than that, throw me something else. What you did would be like disproving the existence of God by using the example of the Holy Spirit.

[genkaus]

You missed my first premise.

1. The mind (which gives 'me' the ability to have identity) exists in the true material world
2. The mind creates reality
3. I (the mind) exist in the reality which I create
4. Thus, because I have created it, I have free will in my reality

Your first premise here is in conflict with your second. And your second is in conflict with your third. And your first is in conflict with your third.

The material world is real. It is a part of reality. Your mind cannot create something in which it already exists.

If your mind exists in the reality which it creates, then it cannot exist before it creates it.

Your mind cannot have dual existences, one in material reality and one in whatever it creates.

Get a grip, man. You are losing it.

This would be analogous to an individual who is blind. They exist in the 'material world', yet their perception creates blackness all around them. They live within this blackness.

No, actually, they do not live within the blackness. They live in the material world. Don't take poetic expressions so literally. That "blackness", which is simply the absence of visual perception, is not reality. It is merely their perception of reality. You do realize that reality is defined as something that is independent of perception right?

The real question to ask here, past the validity of free will, would be what's the fucking point? Even if I do possess free will, it doesn't change the fact that nothing matters and that their is no point. It just means that I'm responsible for what I do, but responsible to what or who? If its morally related to the other minds then there still remains no point, because when I cease to exist I won't be able to even care. Ultimately we are worthless and without purpose - that's what erks me most about my existence.

You have some really fucked up ideas about the nature of your existence. Get those straight before you take on the question of free-will. Right now, almost all of your arguments are nonsensical.

You use logic (which is created by the mind) to attempt to disprove my supposition that the mind creates reality. I know you're better than that, throw me something else. What you did would be like disproving the existence of God by using the example of the Holy Spirit.

You want me to use something better than logic? What do you want me to use? Faith? Do I need to say that I had a divine revelation that you are wrong? Do you even realize that as soon as you indicate your willingness to accept proof, you have already accepted logic as a valid standard for discussion?

Either you are saying that logic does not work or that my formulation is incorrect. No amount of other-worldly analogies would change that. So, tell me, which is it and why?

[Perhaps]

You missed my first premise.

1. The mind (which gives 'me' the ability to have identity) exists in the true material world
2. The mind creates reality
3. I (the mind) exist in the reality which I create
4. Thus, because I have created it, I have free will in my reality

Your first premise here is in conflict with your second. And your second is in conflict with your third. And your first is in conflict with your third.

The material world is real. It is a part of reality. Your mind cannot create something in which it already exists.

If your mind exists in the reality which it creates, then it cannot exist before it creates it.

Your mind cannot have dual existences, one in material reality and one in whatever it creates.

Get a grip, man. You are losing it.

We're going to go in circles forever because I hold the position that the mind creates reality, while you hold the position that reality is independent of the mind. As far as the conflicts between premises go, premise 1 should be easily accepted by yourself, premise 2 is where you have a problem because of your position as it relates to mine, but that doesn't invalidate my argument if the premise is taken to be true. Premise 3 was miss worded, I agree, it should look something more like: My perceived self exists in the reality which I create. My identity is independent of my perceived existence in premise 3.

No, actually, they do not live within the blackness. They live in the material world. Don't take poetic expressions so literally. That "blackness", which is simply the absence of visual perception, is not reality. It is merely their perception of reality. You do realize that reality is defined as something that is independent of perception right?

Oh alright, so their perception of reality is false because they lack the proper mechanism through which to see, but yours is right on the spot because you have all five senses. Once again, what happens if your perception of reality is false as well. The very idea of defining something as independent of the mind is nonsensical in itself, take a step back and think about it. Even if you don't allow me the supposition that the mind creates reality, you can acknowledge that the mind creates the abstractions through which we understand reality and it also provides us with our perceptions which allow us to interact with reality - so what then is independent of our mind if the only way we can interact and understand reality is the mind?

You want me to use something better than logic? What do you want me to use? Faith? Do I need to say that I had a divine revelation that you are wrong? Do you even realize that as soon as you indicate your willingness to accept proof, you have already accepted logic as a valid standard for discussion?

Either you are saying that logic does not work or that my formulation is incorrect. No amount of other-worldly analogies would change that. So, tell me, which is it and why?

I wanted you to realize that your proof relies on the truth of my original statement. I want you to use logic, but I want you to realize that it comes from the mind, and therefore cannot be used to disprove the mind's role in creating reality.

[genkaus]

We're going to go in circles forever because I hold the position that the mind creates reality, while you hold the position that reality is independent of the mind. As far as the conflicts between premises go, premise 1 should be easily accepted by yourself, premise 2 is where you have a problem because of your position as it relates to mine, but that doesn't invalidate my argument if the premise is taken to be true. Premise 3 was miss worded, I agree, it should look something more like: My perceived self exists in the reality which I create. My identity is independent of my perceived existence in premise 3.

Actually, premise 1, which is accepted by both of us, does invalidate your premise 2. Reality, by definition, is independent of mind.

Your error here, which I have pointed out in the past and you failed to acknowledge, is that what your mind creates is a "model of reality" not "reality". These two are fundamentally different things. While in common parlance, people may equivocate between the two, to do so in a philosophical discussion is fundamentally incorrect.

Oh alright, so their perception of reality is false because they lack the proper mechanism through which to see, but yours is right on the spot because you have all five senses. Once again, what happens if your perception of reality is false as well. The very idea of defining something as independent of the mind is nonsensical in itself, take a step back and think about it. Even if you don't allow me the supposition that the mind creates reality, you can acknowledge that the mind creates the abstractions through which we understand reality and it also provides us with our perceptions which allow us to interact with reality - so what then is independent of our mind if the only way we can interact and understand reality is the mind?

Firstly, their perception of reality is not false, but only incomplete. Unless they fill in the absent parts with something based on absence of perception (and even then, if they fill it with something incorrect), the rest of their perception remains correct. Since I have more mechanism at my disposal, my perception is more complete than theirs, but it is not 100% complete either.

Secondly, the mind does not provide perceptions, it receives them. What we see, hear, smell, feel or taste are the perceptions. They are provided by the independent reality and received by the mechanism in place to do so, i.e our sensory organs. They are then transferred on to our minds. The perceptions that our minds receive are independent of our mind as well. They are determined by the external reality which creates all the possible perceptions and by the perception mechanisms, which filter and forward them.

However, we have set up a criteria for calling them perception only when our minds receive them. That is unless our minds don't receive the data, we do not call them perceptions. This does not mean that our mind provides those perceptions.

I wanted you to realize that your proof relies on the truth of my original statement. I want you to use logic, but I want you to realize that it comes from the mind, and therefore cannot be used to disprove the mind's role in creating reality.

How does my proof relies on the truth of your original statement. Yes, logic comes from the mind, but logic is not reality, it a model of reality. Your statement is nowhere assumed to be true. And therefore, we most certainly can use logic to disprove your original statement.

[Perhaps]

Actually, premise 1, which is accepted by both of us, does invalidate your premise 2. Reality, by definition, is independent of mind.

Your error here, which I have pointed out in the past and you failed to acknowledge, is that what your mind creates is a "model of reality" not "reality". These two are fundamentally different things. While in common parlance, people may equivocate between the two, to do so in a philosophical discussion is fundamentally incorrect.

Alright, instead of fighting over the semantics of the argument, I'll alleviate your worry by addressing the subject which is created by the mind as a 'model of reality'. The true material world, which you would equivocate to reality is independent of the mind, as established by premise 1, but the world which we perceive exists within the confines of the mind - inside of our model of reality.

Firstly, their perception of reality is not false, but only incomplete. Unless they fill in the absent parts with something based on absence of perception (and even then, if they fill it with something incorrect), the rest of their perception remains correct. Since I have more mechanism at my disposal, my perception is more complete than theirs, but it is not 100% complete either.

Secondly, the mind does not provide perceptions, it receives them. What we see, hear, smell, feel or taste are the perceptions. They are provided by the independent reality and received by the mechanism in place to do so, i.e our sensory organs. They are then transferred on to our minds. The perceptions that our minds receive are independent of our mind as well. They are determined by the external reality which creates all the possible perceptions and by the perception mechanisms, which filter and forward them.

However, we have set up a criteria for calling them perception only when our minds receive them. That is unless our minds don't receive the data, we do not call them perceptions. This does not mean that our mind provides those perceptions.

I feel that we are arguing over the same concept here. I agree that a true material world exists, and that we perceive parts of that world - although to what extent we can never be certain. The argument is not over whether the material world exists, it is whether free will exists. My assertion is that we perceive our existence within our models of reality, but our minds are external from this model of reality and thus give us free will within it. Our perceptions do reflect the true material world, I believe, but the model of reality we experience is just our bits of perception pieced together.

How does my proof relies on the truth of your original statement. Yes, logic comes from the mind, but logic is not reality, it a model of reality. Your statement is nowhere assumed to be true. And therefore, we most certainly can use logic to disprove your original statement.

Now that we've sorted the semantics of the conversation I think you'll find that my statement holds. The mind creates the models of reality which we exist within.

[genkaus]

Alright, instead of fighting over the semantics of the argument, I'll alleviate your worry by addressing the subject which is created by the mind as a 'model of reality'. The true material world, which you would equivocate to reality is independent of the mind, as established by premise 1, but the world which we perceive exists within the confines of the mind - inside of our model of reality.

No, no, no, no, no. Semantics is important here because a lot of confusion and errors are caused because of incorrectly using them.

Consider the phrase "the world which we perceive". Here the world is the object and the action being taken is perception. The consequence of this action is "the model of reality". There is a chain of causation here: world - perception - model of reality. In the first link of the chain, there is no involvement of the mind. The world is therefore independent of it. At the second link, mind comes in. It is the mind that is doing the action of perceiving. It is, therefore, the model of reality that exists within the confines of our mind - not the world we are perceiving. It is the consequence of the process that exists within our mind, not the object of it.

I feel that we are arguing over the same concept here. I agree that a true material world exists, and that we perceive parts of that world - although to what extent we can never be certain. The argument is not over whether the material world exists, it is whether free will exists. My assertion is that we perceive our existence within our models of reality, but our minds are external from this model of reality and thus give us free will within it. Our perceptions do reflect the true material world, I believe, but the model of reality we experience is just our bits of perception pieced together.

This sounds more or less correct. I guess we can establish some of the statements here as what we both accept upto this point.

1. True material world exists, and that we perceive parts of that world.
2. Our perceptions do reflect the true material world, I believe, but the model of reality we experience is just our bits of perception pieced together.
3. Our minds are external from this model of reality.

I've a little problem with this statement:
"we perceive our existence within our models of reality"

As you established earlier, our mind is basically what we are. Therefore, our mind (and therefore us) is outside the models of reality. How can we exist external to the model of reality and still perceive our existence within it? This may be an error of wording, where you are actually trying to say conceptualize instead of perceive.

Now we have established some basic premises that we agree on, you can go ahead and justify how those premises lead to free-will within the model of reality created and how is that of any use to us in the physical reality.

Now that we've sorted the semantics of the conversation I think you'll find that my statement holds. The mind creates the models of reality which we exist within.

Except for the last part about existing within something you create. I'd say that you exist in the actual reality and just as you create a model of reality, you also create an "idea of you" or a "model of you" that exists within that model.

[TheJackel]

It seems like you haven't put nay thought into this at all. You are essentially putting forward a circular proposition.

1. I exist in reality.
2. Reality exists in my mind.
3. My mind exists in me.

You premise itself is illogical. You cannot hope to prove anything using this premise because proof presupposes an objective existence of reality.

You missed my first premise.

1. The mind (which gives 'me' the ability to have identity) exists in the true material world
2. The mind creates reality
3. I (the mind) exist in the reality which I create
4. Thus, because I have created it, I have free will in my reality

This would be analogous to an individual who is blind. They exist in the 'material world', yet their perception creates blackness all around them. They live within this blackness.

The real question to ask here, past the validity of free will, would be what's the fucking point? Even if I do possess free will, it doesn't change the fact that nothing matters and that their is no point. It just means that I'm responsible for what I do, but responsible to what or who? If its morally related to the other minds then there still remains no point, because when I cease to exist I won't be able to even care. Ultimately we are worthless and without purpose - that's what erks me most about my existence.

---

Way too easy.

1. Reality is what exists independently from any ideas about it. (Tautologically true)
2. If mind creates reality then it is not independent of the mind's ideas about it.

Therefore, mind does not create reality.

You use logic (which is created by the mind) to attempt to disprove my supposition that the mind creates reality. I know you're better than that, throw me something else. What you did would be like disproving the existence of God by using the example of the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately all your premisses fall apart literally if you had bothered to actually read my post. Your mind can not "create reality", it can only be an emergent property of reality.. You can not create that which yourself is slave to require in order to exist... All of your logic is backwards and makes no coherent sense. So let me fix your premises so you can understand where you went wrong:

1. The mind (which gives 'me' the ability to have identity) exists in the true material world
2. The mind creates reality
3. I (the mind) exist in the reality which I create
4. Thus, because I have created it, I have free will in my reality

1. There can only ever be the material world... Worlds made of nothing do not and can not exist.

2. Is impossible.. The mind only processes and interprets reality, and is an emergent property of reality itself. It's impossible to create what yourself requires to exist. Perception of reality is mostly how you react to it, and the limits and boundaries to your given sensory systems. You share the exact same reality everyone else does regardless how you perceive it, or react to it.

3. Makes about as much sense as the 4 corner time cube and is a literal self-refutation. It's about as coherent as claiming you created existence from outside existence so yourself can exist in and of existence... Umm sorry, but that is an utter fail

4. Keep dreaming!


And btw, the brain or "mind" can't do shit without complex sensory systems... Cognitive systems are highly complex, and they definitely can't exist without cause. You're kidding yourself if you think your mind creates reality. It can do no such thing.

[Angrboda]

@Perhaps

Let's take this from a different perspective. You assert that mind creates reality, that perception is a requisite of existence. However, one can't experience their non-existence, whether we're talking about you specifically, or some mind in a larger sense. So by your rules, non-existence can't be real. Moreover, you personally, must be infinitely old, never have been asleep or unconscious, that you have always existed. Is that what you believe, that you are infinitely old, have never slept or been unconscious, and that you have never not existed?

I find it incredible that anyone could believe these things, yet they seem a natural consequence of your assumptions. Or perhaps you've got some sophistry to get around them — we don't actually sleep, we just remember having done something we did not do, or whatever.

First, I think you'll find many people who view the flaws built into our perceptions in your view — believing we sleep when we don't, believing in comets that don't exist — the sum total of errors in our naive worldview is greater under your view than under say, naive realism; I find it hard to see this as a movement into greater clarity — it would seem we have less truth and knowledge under your framework, even accepting it's assumptions.

However this last bit, that non-existence can't exist or be real because there is no mind to make it real, I find that to be little more than an accounting trick, akin to banning subtraction and negative numbers from our accounting: "Whoah! Look! We made a profit this quarter!" Well of course you made a profit. Because you've rigged the rules of the game.

[Reforged]

@Perhaps

Let's take this from a different perspective. You assert that mind creates reality, that perception is a requisite of existence. However, one can't experience their non-existence, whether we're talking about you specifically, or some mind in a larger sense. So by your rules, non-existence can't be real. Moreover, you personally, must be infinitely old, never have been asleep or unconscious, that you have always existed. Is that what you believe, that you are infinitely old, have never slept or been unconscious, and that you have never not existed?

I find it incredible that anyone could believe these things, yet they seem a natural consequence of your assumptions. Or perhaps you've got some sophistry to get around them — we don't actually sleep, we just remember having done something we did not do, or whatever.

First, I think you'll find many people who view the flaws built into our perceptions in your view — believing we sleep when we don't, believing in comets that don't exist — the sum total of errors in our naive worldview is greater under your view than under say, naive realism; I find it hard to see this as a movement into greater clarity — it would seem we have less truth and knowledge under your framework, even accepting it's assumptions.

However this last bit, that non-existence can't exist or be real because there is no mind to make it real, to be little more than an accounting trick, akin to banning subtraction and negative numbers from our accounting: "Whoah! Look! We made a profit this quarter!" Well of course you made a profit. Because you've rigged the rules of the game.

'Nough said.

[Perhaps]

Let's take this from a different perspective. You assert that mind creates reality, that perception is a requisite of existence. However, one can't experience their non-existence, whether we're talking about you specifically, or some mind in a larger sense. So by your rules, non-existence can't be real. Moreover, you personally, must be infinitely old, never have been asleep or unconscious, that you have always existed. Is that what you believe, that you are infinitely old, have never slept or been unconscious, and that you have never not existed?

I find it incredible that anyone could believe these things, yet they seem a natural consequence of your assumptions. Or perhaps you've got some sophistry to get around them — we don't actually sleep, we just remember having done something we did not do, or whatever.

First, I think you'll find many people who view the flaws built into our perceptions in your view — believing we sleep when we don't, believing in comets that don't exist — the sum total of errors in our naive worldview is greater under your view than under say, naive realism; I find it hard to see this as a movement into greater clarity — it would seem we have less truth and knowledge under your framework, even accepting it's assumptions.

However this last bit, that non-existence can't exist or be real because there is no mind to make it real, I find that to be little more than an accounting trick, akin to banning subtraction and negative numbers from our accounting: "Whoah! Look! We made a profit this quarter!" Well of course you made a profit. Because you've rigged the rules of the game.

Different perspectives are always welcome. First, the mind creates a model of reality - the mind is what allows for things to exist in our model realities. You are correct that one is not able to perceive their non-existence (though they may conceptualize). Non-existence is then real in so far as it is a concept which we have assigned certain (non)properties. What brings you to the conclusion that I must be infinitely old, or that I am never able to sleep? (I'm assuming you mean that I am unconscious during deep sleep, which in that case I would say that my mind doesn't cease to exist, it simply isn't aware for that short duration). Also, how does it follow that I have never 'not existed'? My mind has come into existence in the true material world, the only thing which vanishes when my mind ceases is my model of reality.

Sure, you're correct that it doesn't make things any more clear. My position just allows for things which materialism does not, which is why I hold it. Under my position the ideas of truth and knowledge are completely different from the materialist opinion; truth is subjective to my model of reality and knowledge is truly limited to the capabilities of the mind. Some aren't OK with this kind of modest approach to the world and require tangible evidence for all that exists, if you feel that way then I would suggest taking up materialism as your metaphysical position of the world's state.

Non-existence can exist as a concept, but it could never be perceived. It would be like asking to perceive nothing; you can conceptualize what it's attributes are (or aren't), but you could never perceive it.

---

This sounds more or less correct. I guess we can establish some of the statements here as what we both accept upto this point.

1. True material world exists, and that we perceive parts of that world.
2. Our perceptions do reflect the true material world, I believe, but the model of reality we experience is just our bits of perception pieced together.
3. Our minds are external from this model of reality.

I've a little problem with this statement:
"we perceive our existence within our models of reality"

As you established earlier, our mind is basically what we are. Therefore, our mind (and therefore us) is outside the models of reality. How can we exist external to the model of reality and still perceive our existence within it? This may be an error of wording, where you are actually trying to say conceptualize instead of perceive.

Now we have established some basic premises that we agree on, you can go ahead and justify how those premises lead to free-will within the model of reality created and how is that of any use to us in the physical reality.

Premise 4 should then be stated as: The mind conceptualizes our existence within our models of reality

I'll try to address the physical reality first. It wouldn't be of any use in the true material world if we possessed free will inside of our models of reality. Now that that's been sorted, let's move on to how free will exists in our models of reality.

The model of reality is created by the mind by gathering perceptions received from the true material world (though we can never be sure how closely they resemble the true material world). This would mean that both the mind and the perceptions which it receives are external to the conceptualized world. Both being the creator of and being external from the model of reality would allow the mind the ability to control, or at least have influence on, the model of reality. This influence is referred to as free will and is what gives us reign over our conceptualized existence.

Essentially I view the issue as free will being 'truly' illusory, but since we live in a self conceived illusion (I know you won't like my wording of our concepts of reality) we're fine with accepting the influence of this additional illusion. To our conceptual existence free will is real, the same way the world as we perceive it is real. Outside of our created model of reality our free will is null and void, but we can never know what its like outside of our model of reality.

---

TheJackel: OK