Free will, dual ways of reaching a conclusion

[Syamsu]

Metaphysical libertarianism is mostly based on substance dualism, but this is incomplete. I find in common knowledge, and the writings of Occam and Thomas Reid that with the duality of spirit and material posited in libertarianism, also come dual ways of reaching a conclusion. One way is relevant to what choses (spirit), the other way is relevant to what is chosen (material)

1 Evidence and measurement apply to the material domain, resulting in facts.

2 You have to choose to identify what is in the spiritual domain, resulting in opinions.

Dual categories overview:

Material domain

==============

1 what is chosen

2 objectively measured (1 forced conclusion copies information)

3 fact

4 solids gas fluid (fermions) etc.

5 body

6 creation


Spiritual domain:

===============

1 what choses

2 subjectively identified (2 or more conclusions, creates information through chosing)

3 opinion, belief

4 emotions, feeling, love, hate, God, the human spirit etc.

5 soul

6 creator

Here follow a short example of how subjectivity works:

1. somebody makes a big choice in their life

2. What was it that made the choice turn out the way it did?

A social darwinist would answer:

3. I measure according to for instance facial expressions, psychological theory, MRI?, and what people said, to find out what it was that made the choice turn out the way it did.

4. it was in fact love (only 1 answer is logically valid)

A creationist would answer:

3. I chose between hate and love as what made the choice turn out the way it did.

4. In my opinion it was hate (2 or more alternative answers are logically valid)

The creationist expresses their emotion about what is in the human spirit, resulting in an opinion.

The social darwinist measures what people consist of, resulting in a (pseudoscientific) fact.

- libertarian duality validates both objectivity and subjectivity, while all other concepts of free will only validate objectivity

- by not validating subjectivity, all other concepts of free will end up committing the naturalistic fallacy, pretending that what ought and ought not is a matter of objective fact

- subjectivity solves the problem of inherent meaninglessness, or lack of control implied by indeterminacy / randomness. We can subjectively identify a worthwhile agent of a choice. Indeterminacy is therefore freedom from the perspective of the agency. It fully has the power to realize either alternative. (note: these alternatives exist in the future and the choice has an anticipative relationship to these alternatives, unlike descriptions of alternatives which exist in the present)

[Unsay]

How about instead of using the term 'spirit', we will use the term 'abstract', shall we? We need both the abstract system and the literal system to function at full capacity. Both systems take great responsibility, which should never be neglected, abused or taken for granted. Many people have coward their way into distorting their world, while hiding behind their personal feelings and experiences. The abstract has been used as a crutch for a multitude of people, which is dangerous and only results to pure chaos. We have to remember that we live in the real world; we do not live in our heads. We have to pay more attention to the real world no matter how boring, mundane, simple, tough or complicated it is. We should only embrace our abstract system, which is only the cherry ontop of the sundae.

[Syamsu]

How about instead of using the term 'spirit', we will use the term 'abstract', shall we? We need both the abstract system and the literal system to function at full capacity. Both systems take great responsibility, which should never be neglected, abused or taken for granted. Many people have coward their way into distorting their world, while hiding behind their personal feelings and experiences. The abstract has been used as a crutch for a multitude of people, which is dangerous and only results to pure chaos. We have to remember that we live in the real world; we do not live in our heads. We have to pay more attention to the real world no matter how boring, mundane, simple, tough or complicated it is. We should only embrace our abstract system, which is only the cherry ontop of the sundae.

It's just a word, it's the logic that goes with it that matters.

Sounds like you posit a duality of fantasy and reality. That's not the same thing as duality between spirit and material, because when I fantasize about a basketball, I am in fact fantasizing about a baskeball. Fantasy is a matter of facts, it is part of the material world. But the spirit can only be subjectively identified, it's not a matter of fact, that's the difference. When we identify the spirit in which a choice is made we express our spirit. So it only goes from spirit to spirit, so the spirit is completely closed of from evidence.

[Unsay]

Syamsu,

There is no 'spirit'; you are using a model that applies to your misconceptions of the abstract. If there is no 'spirit' there is no subjectivity involved with said 'spirit'; we are merely life forms with a higher cognitive system that allows us to become self-aware of ourselves and everything around us. There is no special 'spirituality' that comes with us. This is all illusionary hyperbole created by misconceptions. Example, ''I felt god's love'', does not mean you felt god's love in actuality. What you felt was the emotions that are scientifically explained in a critical and demonstrable process. People only make up ignorant conclusions to explain what they can not explain.

[Syamsu]

Syamsu,

There is no 'spirit'; you are using a model that applies to your misconceptions of the abstract. If there is no 'spirit' there is no subjectivity involved with said 'spirit'; we are merely life forms with a higher cognitive system that allows us to become self-aware of ourselves and everything around us. There is no special 'spirituality' that comes with us. This is all illusionary hyperbole created by misconceptions. Example, ''I felt god's love'', does not mean you felt god's love in actuality. What you felt was the emotions that are scientifically explained in a critical and demonstrable process. People only make up ignorant conclusions to explain what they can not explain.

That is very non-responsive to what I am saying. Besides that God is acknowledged, there are also no feelings acknowledged either without subjectivity. Feeling also belong to the spiritual category in this dual organization. All what is said to chose is put in the spiritual domain category, and feelings are said to chose.

As mentioned in the original post, you commit the naturalistic fallacy by saying feelings and emotions are a matter of fact. By making everything into a matter of fact, you also make what ought and ought not into a matter of fact.

[Unsay]

Syamsu,

There is no god to this day, there is only misconceptions of every day experiences. Feelings and emotions are not real, I have already stated this before. There are two realms: physical, and interpersonal. This is why the term 'spirit' does not exist because it is based off of 100% subjective claims. There is no objectively-based conclusion that critically and rationally explains the 'spirit'. It all comes down to what people feel and think, which amounts to nothing in the real world. Therefore, you should use the term 'abstract', for 'spirit' is as elusive as 'god'.

[Syamsu]

Syamsu,

There is no god to this day, there is only misconceptions of every day experiences. Feelings and emotions are not real, I have already stated this before. There are two realms: physical, and interpersonal. This is why the term 'spirit' does not exist because it is based off of 100% subjective claims. There is no objectively-based conclusion that critically and rationally explains the 'spirit'. It all comes down to what people feel and think, which amounts to nothing in the real world. Therefore, you should use the term 'abstract', for 'spirit' is as elusive as 'god'.

You are saying subjectivity is evil, because it distracts from objectivity?

[Unsay]

Syamsu,

No, I am saying objectivity is mandatory, as a building's infrastructure, while subjectivity is not mandatory, as hopes and dreams can be created, but your physical actions in the physical world are what turns your hopes and dreams into a reality. Objectivity is the core of life; subjectivity is the abstract designer of the core of life. If there was no objectivism; there would be no subjectivism. Therefore we should focus on the structure of life, rather than what encompasses the structure of life.

[Syamsu]

Syamsu,

No, I am saying objectivity is mandatory, as a building's infrastructure, while subjectivity is not mandatory, as hopes and dreams can be created, but your physical actions in the physical world are what turns your hopes and dreams into a reality. Objectivity is the core of life; subjectivity is the abstract designer of the core of life. If there was no objectivism; there would be no subjectivism. Therefore we should focus on the structure of life, rather than what encompasses the structure of life.

I am completely disappointed by the objectivity of science-minded people when it comes to the issue of free will. When you put the various ideas about free will side by side, and judge which describes things most accurately, and which is most practically useful, then by far the traditional concept of free will as used by religions beats the other ideas with a score of 100 to 1. So when you emphasize objectivity and slam religion.... then I am sure that all this nice talk of objectivity goes right out the window when the issue is free will.

[Unsay]

Symasu,

You are basing this entirely off of your own personal thoughts, which happens to amount to nothing, when it comes to the real world. Provide some objectivism; some tangible effort; some physical reasons that associate themselves to the world as a whole, before you attempt to convince someone like I with something so very unconvincing such as your rant for 'free will'. If you are going to attempt to out-think scientists, with evidence, then prepare to be scoffed at. Nothing you say has any substantial grasp on how our world actually works. You are grasping for straws out of your own self-interest.

[Syamsu]

Symasu,

You are basing this entirely off of your own personal thoughts, which happens to amount to nothing, when it comes to the real world. Provide some objectivism; some tangible effort; some physical reasons that associate themselves to the world as a whole, before you attempt to convince someone like I with something so very unconvincing such as your rant for 'free will'. If you are going to attempt to out-think scientists, with evidence, then prepare to be scoffed at. Nothing you say has any substantial grasp on how our world actually works. You are grasping for straws out of your own self-interest.

It's not the case. Practical usefulness, logical consistency, accuracy of describing can much be objectively tested. But the case is that when it comes to free will, science-minded people take very little care to be right, and instead pander to preconceived notions of physicalism, cause and effect. Instead of objective criteria, arguments like "ridiculous" are used openly to judge various ideas about free will.

[Unsay]

Syamsu,

Scientists are wrong because you personally think there is 'free will' without any way of demonstrating as to why?

[Syamsu]

Syamsu,

Scientists are wrong because you personally think there is 'free will' without any way of demonstrating as to why?

See, now you go into defensive mode, objectivity out the window. What happened to all that nice talk about objectivity?

I can make theory about organisms having free will, and it describes things accurately. I make practical use of this idea that I have alternatives every day.

-- Updated October 9th, 2012, 8:29 am to add the following --

I reply to my own posting to further enlighten how dualism works.

I will now provide proof that objectivity is invalid in regards to the agency of a decision.

Objectivity works by a way of rewriting information, for example;

When a videocamera is turned toward the moon, then information travels from the moon by medium of light, through the lens of the camera, through the circuitry, and unto the videotape.

Same when I look at the moon, then information travels from the moon by medium of light, through my eyes, into my brain, and is stored in my memory.

There are then both on the videotape and in my memory pictures of the moon, which are both basically the same. The information from the moon was rewritten as magnetism on a videotape in the case of the videocamera, ant the information from the moon was rewritten as electrochemistry of my memory in the case of myself.

The point of this example is that objectivity occurs by rewriting information already present. The scientist does not make up information, they collect information from nature, and put the information in a book. And that objectivity only works with information already present is why objectivity does not apply to the agency of a decision.

In a decision information is created namely the result of the decision is new information.

- for if the result-information were not new, but instead the result-information already existed, then it would not be true that the decision could turn out otherwise, for then the result-information could only be in accordance with the already existing information.


- new information cannot come from more information, otherwise we end up with ciricular reasoning, where we explain the origin of information with (more) information, which is a logical error.


- so when we look at the agency of a decision then we are looking at the point where the result-information is being created, and at this point there can be no information.


- and since objectivity doesn't work without information there, objectivity therefore cannot apply to the agency of a decision.


This does not prove that subjectivity is valid to address agency, it only proves objectivity is invalid in addressing agency.

-- Updated October 9th, 2012, 8:31 am to add the following --

I reply to my own posting to further enlighten how dualism works.

I will now provide proof that objectivity is invalid in regards to the agency of a decision.

Objectivity works by a way of rewriting information, for example;

When a videocamera is turned toward the moon, then information travels from the moon by medium of light, through the lens of the camera, through the circuitry, and unto the videotape.

Same when I look at the moon, then information travels from the moon by medium of light, through my eyes, into my brain, and is stored in my memory.

There are then both on the videotape and in my memory pictures of the moon, which are both basically the same. The information from the moon was rewritten as magnetism on a videotape in the case of the videocamera, ant the information from the moon was rewritten as electrochemistry in my memory in the case of myself.

The point of this example is then that objectivity occurs by rewriting information already present. The scientist does not make up information, they collect information from nature, and put the information in a book. And that objectivity only works with information already present is why objectivity does not apply to the agency of a decision.

In a decision information is created namely the result of the decision is new information.

- for if the result-information were not new, but instead the result-information already existed, then it would not be true that the decision could turn out otherwise, for then the result-information could only be in accordance with the already existing information.


- new information cannot come from more information, otherwise we end up with ciricular reasoning, where we explain the origin of information with (more) information, which is a logical error.


- so when we look at the agency of a decision then we are looking at the point where the result-information is being created, and at this point there can be no information.


- and since objectivity doesn't work without information there, objectivity therefore cannot apply to the agency of a decision.


This does not prove that subjectivity is valid to address agency, it only proves objectivity is invalid in addressing agency.

-- Updated October 9th, 2012, 8:35 am to add the following --

I reply to my own posting to further enlighten how dualism works.

I will now provide proof that objectivity is invalid in regards to the agency of a decision.

Objectivity works by a way of rewriting information, for example;

When a videocamera is turned toward the moon, then information travels from the moon by medium of light, through the lens of the camera, through the circuitry, and unto the videotape.

Same when I look at the moon, then information travels from the moon by medium of light, through my eyes, into my brain, and is stored in my memory.

There are then both on the videotape and in my memory pictures of the moon, which are both basically the same. The information from the moon was rewritten as magnetism on a videotape in the case of the videocamera, ant the information from the moon was rewritten as electrochemistry in my memory in the case of myself.

The point of this example is then that objectivity occurs by rewriting information already present. The scientist does not make up information, they collect information from nature, and put the information in a book. And that objectivity only works with information already present is why objectivity does not apply to the agency of a decision.

In a decision information is created namely the result of the decision is new information.

- for if the result-information were not new, but instead the result-information already existed, then it would not be true that the decision could turn out otherwise, for then the result-information could only be in accordance with the already existing information.


- new information cannot come from more information, otherwise we end up with ciricular reasoning, where we explain the origin of information with (more) information, which is a logical error.


- so when we look at the agency of a decision then we are looking at the point where the result-information is being created, and at this point there can be no information.


- and since objectivity doesn't work without information there, objectivity therefore cannot apply to the agency of a decision.


This does not prove that subjectivity is valid to address agency, it only proves objectivity is invalid in addressing agency.

-- Updated October 9th, 2012, 9:19 am to add the following --

I reply to my own posting to further enlighten how dualism works.

I will now provide proof that objectivity is invalid in regards to the agency of a decision.

Objectivity works by a way of rewriting information, for example;

When a videocamera is turned toward the moon, then information travels from the moon by medium of light, through the lens of the camera, through the circuitry, and unto the videotape.

Same when I look at the moon, then information travels from the moon by medium of light, through my eyes, into my brain, and is stored in my memory.

There are then both on the videotape and in my memory pictures of the moon, which are both basically the same. The information from the moon was rewritten as magnetism on a videotape in the case of the videocamera, ant the information from the moon was rewritten as electrochemistry in my memory in the case of myself.

The point of this example is then that objectivity occurs by rewriting information already present. The scientist does not make up information, they collect information from nature, and put the information in a book. And that objectivity only works with information already present is why objectivity does not apply to the agency of a decision.

In a decision information is created namely the result of the decision is new information.

- for if the result-information were not new, but instead the result-information already existed, then it would not be true that the decision could turn out otherwise, for then the result-information could only be in accordance with the already existing information.


- new information cannot come from more information, otherwise we end up with ciricular reasoning, where we explain the origin of information with (more) information, which is a logical error.


- so when we look at the agency of a decision then we are looking at the point where the result-information is being created, and at this point there can be no information.


- and since objectivity doesn't work without information there, objectivity therefore cannot apply to the agency of a decision.


This does not prove that subjectivity is valid to address agency, it only proves objectivity is invalid in addressing agency.

-- Updated October 15th, 2013, 6:54 am to add the following --

Below is the current entry on free will I wrote on creationwiki.org. Any contribution towards a more practical and straightforward understanding of free will along these dualist lines is welcome. It seems I am the only one on the entire internet who promotes practical understanding of free will. In my estimation there is enormous potential for contributing towards democracy, and civilization, if you promote practical straightforward understanding of free will.

The difficulty people have in understanding free will is with subjectivity, with choosing the answer about what the agency of a decision is. People much want to know what the agency of a decision is as a matter of fact, not opinion. That is impossible, but nevertheless people want it, and it leads to rejection of the concept of free will when they see the concept does not give them what they want. So in some way the benefits of subjectivity needs to be made plain, the benefits of expressing emotions, of being subjective. Can anybody help with phrasing things in such a way that subjectivity becomes more pallatable to people?


Free will

Free will, is the capability of agents to make one of alternative futures the present. The logic of free will has two main parts, a categorical distinction is made between all "what chooses", and all "what is chosen", referred to as the spiritual domain and the material domain respectively. This understanding in terms of two categories is named dualism.

Together with these two domains come two ways of reaching a conclusion, subjectivity and objectivity. You have to choose to identify what is in the spiritual domain, resulting in opinions (subjectivity). You have to measure to find out what is in the material domain, resulting in facts (objectivity).

[1]William of Ockham philosophically justified both objectivity and subjectivity

Contents
1 Practical understanding
1.1 the individual
2 Overview of the dual categories in free will
3 References
4 External Links

Practical understanding

Look at the sky at night, and see the stars in the sky, then copy down the positions of the stars in a notebook. That is how objectivity works, copying information from nature, resulting in facts.

If you then consider that the stars could have turned out a different way than they did, perhaps that things could have turned out in such a way that those stars didn't come to be at all, then one can only reach a conclusion about what made the decision turn out the way it did by choosing the answer. This procedure is how subjectivity works, creating information yourself about what chooses instead of copying it, resulting in an opinion.

the individual
The individual is who somebody is as being the owner of their decisions. By a way of choosing what emotions somebody has in their heart an opinion is formed on who somebody is.

Overview of the dual categories in free will

what chooses
spiritual domain
subjectively identified (creates information)
opinion
soul
God, human spirit, love, hate, self
creator

what is chosen
material domain
objectively measured (copies information)
fact
body
solids, gasses, fluids, fantasy figures, mathematics
creation