That's a view I share. The two types if "I" are even more prominent on consciousness altering substances, up to completely seperating the observer and the decider. The desicions are viewed by the observer without prejudice, and you can learn lot about yourself that way. Also depersonalisation and derealisation(hope that's right, im German) which i experienced with a anxiety disorder are a separation of the two. You realise that you are actually not in control, you can only observe the action your brain dictates. It's my view that we are the sum of every decision made in our lives, every response we got, in short your past life dictates your actions. which can be very unsettling.

And the point of getting mad, i really thought a while that i can control it. But in reality i can't, i get mad and only afterwards i can readjust my feelings. It pops up, and then I calm down again. Which could be viewed as free will, but again, that's only the sum of everything that happened to me. I can do this, because i had some experiences or whatnot that made me able to do so, and they made me not only able to do this, but they also dictate that i do it, in which situations i do it, and in which not.

On high doses of hallucinogens you can get get in a kind of state that makes you aware of everything your brain is doing. It's really a conceptual space almost in a mathematical sense, It's the last stage(there is another, depending on the substance) of the geometry you perceive on low to high doses. It's fascinating, it starts almost invisible, gets stronger and more vivid, the complexity increases more and more. Then there's a point after you can't get away from it anymore. It's visible with open eyes, at first covering stuff in 2d, then it gets 3d, and then there comes a point where open or closed eyes don't make a difference anymore. The last state is the realization that that geometry IS your conscience. It's too much to grasp, normally we have filters that save us from this. At that point every feeling is connected, all the senses are the same. It's just math at that point. And as someone that has math, physics and such stuff as a serious hobby, it makes sense. Lots of fractal and actually impossible geometry.

But not for mathematics. Impossible to describe i mean. Sadly most people that do this to such an extent have nothing to do with math. I would love to hear the thoughts of a real mathematician, because they are just trained to recognise patterns and propably already know lots of the concepts they would experience.

Why fractals for example? I think that they are representations of feedback loops we see operating, like the oxygen concentration and breathing loop. Or just the image of on Neuron firing, and after x steps it gets triggered again. And again. Untill some other neuron interferes. It's a state of constant fluidity, it changes in (maybe?) infinitesimal small steps, as time has long lost its meaning at that point.

Every thing has meaning, sometimes paradoxical; and everything your body experiences in that state strongly infuences the geometry you ecperience. Like when someone touches you, you don't feel it on yor arm, instead the geometry changes accordingly. Or music... can seriously be too much, but you can see(i use this word in lieu of a better one, experience would propably better, but still not enough.) what the music does to your brain. I think i stop here, i don't belive this is the right place for this.

Go there if you want to know more about the kinds of geometry you'll experience psychedelics.

It's a shame that no one does studies on this, it could reveal so much about the inner workings of our consciousness. Or not, and it' just bs. But i don't think so. They strip your mind one layer of safeguard after another, untill you're exposed to everything your mind can offer. It's not even scary, because at that point "scary" ist just one concept of many, and since you are the observer you can analyze it and what it does to your brain and your body without fear. Without anything actually. You are reduced to something i can't describe. And if the effects wear off, you can't describe what really happened, because we don't have words for it. Not even a concept. That's why im for mathematicians on drugs... They maybe could shed some light on this.

I'm really not sure if it's just bs, but all the connections to math just make sense. In the end, we are nothing more than computers. Biological, but still a computer.

OK, now i really stop.

Full on deterministic i would say...

And have mercy with me, i have nothing to do with philosophy, i just like to read this sub, and once i had something maybe meaningful to share.

By the way, i don't believe in DMT faires or such stuff, maybe a part of yor consciousness gets separated or whatnot. Everything on hallucinogens only happens in your brain.

And a warning to everyone, you all probably can guess where my anxiety disorder comes from... I have HPPD too, so be careful if you think about going on a trip! Please!

Hmm.. Interesting.

I thought the article was good -gave me a much clearer view of the concept than I had before

I think the idea is that the more you live your life to the fullest, the more you would embrace the eternal return - just my impression from the article -i certainly don't know much about Nietzsche:)

I just found this your post in my email, and the mention of "free will" caught my interest as it can dissimulate in such curious ways. Coming from a phenomenological background, I'm sensing the thinking in your paper is very deeply based on von Bertalanffy's General System theory, which is derivative of theoretical Thermodynamics and — as such — is a particular type of temporality characterized as synchronic. It also appears you’re further delimiting temporality as the notorious "arrow of time,” which only moves forward with its implicit assumptions of “free will” based on definitions of an independent self. This is compared to general synchrony temporality that functions as the “infinitely, eternalized equal sign” that metaphorically can be thought of as a digital video file that can be played forwards and backward.

While I certainly don't mean to be negatively critical, I should mention this notion of "radical free will" vs. "situated freedom" articulated by the Economic Philosopher Charles A. Taylor. Particularly since I'm sensing your image of temporal Asymmetry is a negative dialectic of the diachronic existential temporality Heidegger attempted to explicate as his “care structure of comportment” in Being and Time he was deriving from Henré Bergson's “Durée” and his colleague Heisenberg articulated as the “uncertainty principle.” But, of course, Heidegger didn’t complete his masterwork as he hadn’t sufficiently thought through temporality; instead, he brought the Nietzschean shift to psychological understandings of temporality in an age of “post-truth” into sharp relief that your writing about. At least, that’s my sense reading your paper.

More to the point is that phenomenologically your notion of Temporal Asymmetry is very reminiscent of Emmanual Levinas' notions of Time and the Other that fleshes out synchronic temporality as derivative of existential diachrony — where the future is unknown and arises from what his colleague, Maurice Blanchot, articulated as the Infinite Conversation from which all notions of an independent individual with free-will are “always, already situated in” as “the there” — which both thought of as the “Impossible of the Possible.” Personally, I understand this as what Martin Burckhardt refers to as the "dividual" that must be considered within the context of the "Psychology of the Machine,” meaning the rational edifice’s digital metaphysics of Modernity.

Having "said" that, I think you're quite right in noticing how digital metaphysics simulacrums dissimulate as rational machinations without any inherent notion of value, and “as such,” always require human discrimination to give them meaning (which is not to side-step the arguments of AI's achieving sentience — just for all practical purposes, they are currently "dumb" assistive tools that extend human “creation ex nihilo.”) And that humans are always required to make choices without totally understanding the implications of their choices; more importantly humans are not “fated things” as we live in an open filigree of coherency full of possibility, which I think is what you’re articulating as Infinite Computational Medium; and that this design of coherency is a reflection of our inherent antilogy. What I think is possibly missing is understanding how the notion of an independent self is a kind of artifice reflecting the shifting from “rappresentare to representatio” in the Renaissance, which becomes the Cartesian subject/object split. As you continue investigating your question, you may want to consider how the independent individual exercising free will is always derivative of the community background from which the “dividual” sense of self arises. And, more importantly, how our continued transition into Modernity’s digitalization, as Social Media and the like, continues to bring this into sharper relief.

Where the hell do I get my hands on Wittgenstein's two major texts, Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations?

Don’t tell me what to do! I have free will.

/joke

I think the problem only arises when we try to 'is' something. When we say "(this sensation I am experiencing) means this physical object is (some category of thing)". Categories are rational entities that may or may not map on to the physical world very well.

The thought experiment / existential question of the eternal return holds regardless, but as an aside, Nietzsche was influenced by scientific ideas at the time that suggested the possibility of a literal eternal return, something like a hard reset of the universe at some point in the distant future, leading to a literal re-living of our lives, over and over again.

A map is not predicting anything, it is a graphic representation of the earth’s surface. A map is a record of the terrain. A map is not created by getting to the edge of a known territory and then extrapolating what might exist in the unknown regions. That’s just not how maps are created. It’s not.

The person holding the map can use the map to understand what the earth will look like when they get to the portion of the terrain the map is meant to represent. Sure, as roads move, buildings change, and construction continues, maps become out of date, but at that point, the map is no longer a representation of the terrain. It doesn’t predict where the roads might move to, what the buildings will look like in ten years, or how a new hill might form. Once the terrain is no longer described by the map, the map ceases to be a map of the terrain and is a historical document of what it used to be.

The analogy works to describe the difference between perception of reality (the map) and reality (the terrain) as a metaphor for a useful representation of an underlying fact of reality without literally being the reality. Beyond that, different analogies are needed.

It's more like people with religious and political motives like to frame this as if there's genuine debate around the issue rather than mountains of scientific evidence that keeps piling up about the nature of existence and all things residing within it.

I say political because believing in free will is correlated with believing in both extrajudicial and judicial retribution. In other words, people often choose to believe that people made terrible choices in lieu of their actual available choices according to a deterministic universe and that those people deserve to essentially be tortured in utterly inhumane conditions.

I think it's a mistake to even give these free will proponents a platform, same as fascist ideology. Belief in free will seems situated on a moral axis more often than it does a scientific/objective front. Many of these people I feel aren't arguing in good faith, which is ironic given the propensity towards a concurrent religious belief system.

32 why?

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

How old are you....?

[deleted]

Thanks.

I see the comment was deleted.
Isn't this a question important philosophers dealt with? It's fundamental to how faith works since some religious systems prohibit examining ideas for the risk of them being adopted for finding them favorable, so that's rejecting ideas for knowing ahead they'll be favorable.

I think this model discounts the need to explore new possibilities despite how (dellisionally or not) content one might be.

And I've learned there are two kinds of way or even more that people understand free will, the one that is removed from all causes or the one that is free of obligation (no external force).

I mean I’m very accepting of who I am, how people are or can be and the imperfections of the world. I doubt even the most successful people In history wouldn’t change details and choices they’ve made because perfection doesn’t exist. What do you mean a single small thing? I regret yelling at my dog for having an accident in the house, I wouldn’t change my life or who I am 🤷🏻‍♂️

Like I truly just don’t want to or can’t imagine being anything besides what and where I am.

You don’t need to apologize for your opinion, why do you feel that way though? I love being me, you don’t love being you?

>would accept being me and living my life over and over again

Sorry if i doubt that. It would put you closer to being the Übermensch than probably anyone ever. You sure there wouldnt be a single small thing you would have wanted to be different?

No empirical experiment can prove or disprove the existence of free will without first explicitly laying out sufficient definitions of free, will and self. BTW I’m agreeing.

This is an excellent thread, lots of great comments. You can’t even begin to untangle the semantics of free will, without first clarifying the concept of an embodied “I”.

True

And I’m saying that while you THINK you may be able to choose your death, however that may be, death is a guarantee for you… that isn’t subject to free will… Your beginning and your end are factually guaranteed, determined outcomes, however or whenever. To suggest the experiential aspect in the middle is free will, is also to suggest that you have a choice in the matter of your beginning and your end - but your death is guaranteed, and a determined outcome - no matter what you THINK you can do about it.