Free Will

Originally posted by akgo01 ↑

"The whole definition is useless as nothing in this Universe is independent of any prior event nor independent of the state of the Universe."

Okay. Please tell me your definition of free will then.

"... is an illusion most likely caused by your failure to actually read and digest the contents of the posts involved, your limitation from viewing the world in terms of black and white, yes or no, true or untrue and your attitude to Copper."

Yes, I do try to argue in terms of black and white, yes or no, true or untrue. That is because I aim for precise and logical conclusions. I don't play with and hide in lexical semantics.

One's attitude toward others is interrelated. My attitude to Copper is my reaction to Copper's attitude to me.

Now, here is why I said you were sneaky in your response to waffle.

In your post
#:
65895976
, you wrote:

"In general not only is there no sign of free will but virtually no evidence of any sort of will."

In that sentence, you indirectly say there is no free will or any sort of will. But then you contradict yourself by saying:

"Free will however could act independently of habitual inner habits including the ordinary ego, moral beliefs, emotional, thinking functions etc and some external conditions."

First you say there is no free will, but then you say "Free will however could act independently ..." To me that is a clear proof that you, Copper, contradict yourself.

You fell in that hole of contradicting yourself, I think you because you didn't try to have a clear (black and white!) idea of what free will is.

And then you wrote:

"However, this would require a separate "higher self" in direct contact with genuine conscience which is sufficiently developed and present in order for this impartiality to oneself to be possible.

Clearly this is exceptional and very uncommon."

The idea you express there is really no different from what @wafflehead put forward. But you put it as if it is a new idea from you.

To me that is sneaky.

Expand

"Yes, I do try to argue in terms of black and white, yes or no, true or untrue. That is because I aim for precise and logical conclusions"

The only problem is those conclusions often do not represent reality.
I'm amazed that not only do you not accept that the yes or no perspective is often a severe limitation in understanding the real world, but you put it forward as desirable.
Actually I'm not amazed it's just as expected.

""In general not only is there no sign of free will but virtually no evidence of any sort of will."

In that sentence, you indirectly say there is no free will or any sort of will. But then you contradict yourself by saying:"

This is an example of your limited understanding of what was said because you have not included the context of the exchange nor specifically the preceding part of that paragraph nor accounted for use of the phrase "in general".

After the example of people in general and their lack of will, I go on to mention the possibility of genuine free will, what would be required for this and how rare and exceptional it would be.

So the only contradiction is in your mind because you can't see those two different examples.

"The idea you express there is really no different from what @wafflehead put forward. But you put it as if it is a new idea from you.
To me that is sneaky."

This idea has similarities with waffle's and in fact we have discussed such ideas in the past. That doesn't make it "no different" except for you because you have difficulty seeing shades of meaning.
Then, I simply expressed the idea without any claim it was new or not. That is your imagination.

I think you have little or no idea of the role of questioning as a means to open to a broader view rather than giving answers which kill or stifle any possibility of going further.
Goodness knows what you say to your students.

BTW I'm very sure waffle would find your accusation of "sneaky" as silly as it is.

.