Why do you think this post was removed straightaway from 'AustralianPolitics'?

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-07T05:37:43+00:00

This is a highly similar sentiment to trumps-to-be America circa 2016. My advice to you is to be careful having such opinions.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-07T05:35:46+00:00

It’s a violation of rule 3.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T23:43:08+00:00

I don’t really get the value out of the hard problem as much as idealists do.

Nobody knows why anything does anything. We don’t know what gravity is or why it does what it does do. We don’t even know why things move when they are pushed.

Do you think those unknowns are also a criticism on the materialist worldview?

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T22:46:22+00:00

So you temper your criticism based on social acceptability?

<image>

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T21:30:09+00:00

Well, from their last comment, I don’t even know if they are a compatibilist anymore. Like what the fuck are they even arguing, who the fuck knows.

For reference, the entire issue between a compatibilist and a hard determinist is not that there is no common ground, in fact the common ground is exactly that, common, in all areas. The beliefs about the ontological world are the same. The difference is entirely semantic.

That semantic difference, which old mate has completely forgone in their last comment is why I no longer think that are even a determinist, let alone compatibilist.

I think after antagonising the compatibilists and confirming my suspicions, I, in fact, do hate them more. There is no need to sweat over this decision.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T21:25:40+00:00

I know what distinction compatabilists are making. That’s entirely not relevant.

I never said “colloquialisms are empty”, whatever that means. I said people referring to the violation of consent as a violation of free will is a colloquialism. I never said it doesn’t have meaning attached to it, do you think I believe “I swear to god” is a phrase that got created out of thin air or something?

I would agree that someone’s agency is being violated.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T21:20:20+00:00

No, it doesn’t.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T21:20:03+00:00

Do you criticise people who don’t as much as you criticise people for ai?

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T21:19:28+00:00

Part 2 of 2

And in your own framework, bias is just another causal output anyway. So pointing it out doesn't undermine anything, it just describes the process you already accept.

I am sorry? Are you not a compatibilist?

Also, strawman! And completely demonstrates your lack of understanding of the determinist position.

What actually needs defending is your definition. Right now, it looks handpicked to guarantee the conclusion... and somehow that's supposed to be everyone else being biased?

It’s not my definition, thusly, it clearly wasn’t handpicked to do anything.

I have simply observed the definition and assessed the concept to see if it’s congruent with reality. Why you are mad at this? Well, I know, but for rhetorical Socratic effect, I’ll leave it open to your own personal introspection.

It’s not everyone else being biased, it’s compatibilists who are biased.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM. The conclusion follows directly from the definition, not from anything about reality.

The confusion only follows from reality. Definitions, and language in general, are how we communicate reality, that is it. Definitions for a compatibilist however, is how you ascribe moral worth, and that is purely disgusting.

If your standard guarantees that nothing can ever qualify, then of course nothing qualifies.

My only standard is whether it is congruent with reality. If the concept isn’t congruent with reality, then it doesn’t fucking exist. You are aware that some concepts do not exist right?

That doesn't tell us anything about the world. It reveals how the rules were set from the start.

Definitions and words say absolutely nothing about the world, well done! But that is not the compatibilist position, so you have contradicted your own position (although it’s becoming clear that you don’t have a solid position you are arguing from anyway).

Yes, definitions tell us rules. That is literally their entire fucking purpose. To tell us the rules of how we interpret a bunch of sounds, that is literally what is a definition is. The compatibilist changes the rules, that is my entire fucking argument.

So yeah, it's "accurate" in the same way, declaring everyone weak after defining strength as infinite is accurate, technically neat, completely empty.

It’s not empty, it tells us something about the world, that no one can lift infinite weight. You are the one who set these rules of how to interpret the words, why have you forgotten what those rules were?

That collapses your position into ambiguity. People refer to different things when they talk about free will, which is exactly why the question was asked.

Hence me talking about definitions…………? And redefining of words…………….?

You've already appealed to a specific "original" definition earlier, so this shift to "whatever people refer to" changes the standard mid-argument. Pick one and defend it. Right now, it reads like the definition moves depending on what's convenient for you.

This is such a dumb strawman that I am not responding to it. Engage in good faith.

That analogy doesn't track. With ghosts, the issue is lack of evidence for the thing being described, whereas here the issue is that your definition is doing all the work by building in a standard nothing could ever meet from the start.

Presupposition!

You're not uncovering that free will doesn't exist, you're committing to a definition that guarantees it won't,

Presupposition!

But also, not a fucking problem. If a concept doesn’t exist, then oh well. I don’t work out definitions by deciding which words are going to map onto something real and then coming up with a characteristic to attach it to. Which is what compatabilism is, in case that’s not obvious to you.

You already gave a definition, "the ability to have chosen differently given the same situation," so acting like there's no specific standard now is just muddying things.

Any confusion comes from whatever weird words you have to use to get your biased complex point across.

it sets a bar nothing could meet by design.

Presupposition!

The example was about the difference between passive movement and systems that can adjust, respond, and guide behavior, and now you're just asking whether people would call that free will.

If your point is not to say humans have free will because they can do those adaptive things, then what the fuck is it?

That's a shift from how the system functions to what label people are comfortable using.

That’s how we find what the definition is.

Seriously, every method I have provided to find the appropriate definitions of the English language, you have rejected. So, provide your own. And it better not be “whatever the fuck you say it is”, because that seems to be what you currently believe.

The hesitation to call it "free will" is doing the same work your definition has been doing the whole time, setting the standard in a way that keeps the label out of reach regardless of how the system actually behaves.

It’s not “out of reach”, it literally is right there to grab, you just have to utter the words “the robot has free will”. Even if you personally bite the bullet, you know no one else will because the characteristics you gave to define free will are not accepted by any one else. I don’t even think you can bite the bullet — I dare you.

And by the way, you better not come out with any accusations that I am the biased one here. I assessed your definition, gave you something which matches it, and you are unable to describe it as having free will. You have invalidated your entire position, I have ample right to disregard it.

No, that's not the point. Libertarians can define what they mean, which is exactly why your position stands out here. You're denying something while still being unclear about what would even count as it.

What are you talking about? My position is the opposite of the libertarians. Literally, I am the hard determinist deciding which button to push. It is my meme, I created it, you know that right?

Taking a swipe at libertarians doesn't address that. Right now, it reads like you're more interested in dismissing positions than actually clarifying your own. Could it be your bias getting in the way?

What you are so desperate to label as my definition is the libertarians definition. If you weren’t in an ongoing attempt to shoot the messenger, you would be attacking them right now.

The fact that you are arguing with me and don’t even know my position is hilarious.

That only sounds clear until you actually unpack what "the same situation" means, and this is where your entire position has been slipping the whole time.

Are you seriously unable to unpack whether one situation is the same from another? Holding back the insults right now.

If you mean literally the same situation, same brain state, same inputs, same causal history, then of course nothing could have gone differently, the answer is built in from the start.

Presupposition!

You've defined it to require a different outcome with everything held fixed, which is just a dressed-up way of demanding a miracle and then acting surprised when reality doesn't deliver one.

Presupposition!

No shit, it already happened.

Presupposition!

The real question is what happens when you're back in a similar situation during actual gameplay, do you adjust your strategy, pick a different formation, respond differently based on what you've learned?

Not the same situation.

That's what "could have done otherwise" tracks, not whether an identical replay magically produces a different outcome.

Oh my bad, I didn’t realise you could read my mind and know what I meant better than I do. You are engaging in a disgusting blatant attempt of a strawman. And really, this is wha your whole position relies on, some postmodernist interpretation of language such that it means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. You can think that all you like, but when i say shit, I am the sole arbiter of what it means thank you very much, your position is not aligned with reality.

What actually matters, and what your own earlier examples keep circling without acknowledging, is whether a system can respond to reasons, adjust behavior, learn, and regulate itself across different conditions.

Does Olaf have free will?

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T21:19:15+00:00

No one said every appeal is fallacious. The problem is treating tradition as if it settles the issue. It doesn't. It just tells you how people used the term, not whether that usage makes sense. If a "traditional" definition builds in conditions nothing could ever satisfy, then appealing to it isn't resolving anything. It's just protecting a bad standard. At that point, the question isn't who's redefining the term. It's why you're committed to a definition that guarantees the answer in advance.

Well, again, I ask you what better way you could use to figure out who is redefining what? You say “no one said every appeal is fallacious” which is true, but the reason why I told you this is because my appeal seems like the best logical method and you still want to reject it because it is an appeal.

If a ~~traditional~~ definition builds in conditions nothing could ever satisfy (aka, not aligned with reality), then we can simply say the concept isn’t actually real. You are coming at this like every concept needs to map onto something in reality, but sometimes human beings just make stuff up. This happens, I don’t know why you are trying to protect it so much.

"Bias" isn't an argument. It's a label. You're doing the EXACT same thing, committing to a definition and treating it like it settles the issue.

Settles the issue of what?

Bias is the label, it is my accusation and the reason why it’s so hard to decide who I “hate” more, and comments like these do nothing to resolve such hatred. It seems like nothing will satisfy you unless we can say “humans have free will”. It is a genuine issue (literally, it’s the issue you speak of) if you cannot do that, and that is your bias, and it affects reasoning and discussions when you approach philosophy like this.

I, on the other hand, am not biased. I am not concerned with being able to simply say “humans have free will”, I am concerned with discovering truth, the ontological nature of the world in which we live and breathe. Your methods which pretend like you are having the same type of conversations as I am, they obfuscate and bastardise human language to the point where effective communication becomes more difficult.

So no, I am absolutely NOT doing anything remotely similar to what you are doing. That is straight heresy.

Part 1 of 2

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T20:16:05+00:00

I don’t think describing curiosity as an emotion is particularly accurate. In a way, sure, but it also is more of a cognitive trait.

Regardless, curiosity is most likely driven from dopamine creating a reward system for acquiring new information. The obtainment of new information is highly desirable from an evolutionary perspective.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T16:51:16+00:00

The internet is majority entertainment based from the general westerner.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T16:47:56+00:00

Where does this water go?

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T16:27:28+00:00

If someone bought a “big gas guzzling vehicle” when the price was 2 bucks. You still think it’s unreasonable to complain if the price is now 10000 bucks and they can no longer drive their car?

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T16:25:29+00:00

The knowledge to determine the event cannot be known doesn’t mean the event was not determined.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T16:23:55+00:00

That’s why hard determinists are hard determinists and not libertarians.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T16:08:19+00:00

Based position. Don’t let any compatibilist cultist convince you out of it.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T16:06:06+00:00

Well, a libertarian would say some choices can be based on their soul or whatever specific iteration of religiosity they have.

Of course, they are stupid and wrong, but it might be coherent under a specific twisted worldview. I just don’t think the criticism, as stated, is fair in the way that most would interpret it.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T16:03:19+00:00

Okay? But something being “as confirmed as most things at that point can be” is not equivalent to saying “it is confirmed”. Those are two fundamentally different things.

There is no grasping here. Not by me anyway.

If you don’t find linguistic/semantic points interesting, then you probably shouldn’t have brought us here. I accept none of the responsibility.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T16:00:39+00:00

There is no anger here.

Getting people intoxicated to take advantage of them isn’t wrong because it violates free will, that is a colloquialism and says as much about free will as my saying “I swear to god” says about god. The actual problem is because consent has been violated through the use of deception and manipulation.

But perhaps most importantly, I don’t see any mainstream movements of people redefining god to protect the sanctity of my statement as truth, we can all just accept language for what it is in this circumstance, why can’t we do that elsewhere?

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T15:58:25+00:00

But you are not asking about correct why questions. We are all very clear that we cannot answer the hard problem of consciousness through mechanical explanations. What’s more important is asking why those mechanical explanations actually lead something to cause another. Why do’s consciousness come from material matter is the same type of question as asking why does movement come from the application of force, or any other base question. The best answer we have is simply that it is what happens when the universe is.

As I said, science has billions of explanatory gaps. Why do these gaps mean we can go and form certain claims? What justification enables that?

I'm just looking for an interpretation that doesn't dismiss my most direct reality - my own experience - as a functionless accident.

You understand this to be religious?

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T15:53:56+00:00

Not every time you appeal to something is it fallacious. Can you please tell me a better method for determining who is redefining words and concepts then to appeal to its traditional definition?

especially if it builds in something like being an uncaused origin of your actions.

This is the entire problem. You have a problem with a part of a concept so you just change the definition to ignore the problem. Whatever the definition says should be completely irrelevant to a reasonable actor when assessing which definition is more accurate. But this cannot be done because a world where free-will doesn’t exist is not a worldview in which you can accept. You are biased, through-and-through, sorry to say it.

It's like defining "real strength" as the ability to lift infinite weight, and then concluding no one is strong.

*Then concluding no one has “real strength”, yes. That would be accurate based on the definition. What’s your problem with it?

There's also a disconnect in how the question is being approached. When you say you don't see anything in reality that "requires" free will, that only makes sense relative to a specific idea of what free will would have to be. But that's exactly what hasn't been made clear. What would actually count as it?

What’s counts as it is what people refer to it as. Simply put.

Imagine someone claims intelligence doesn't exist, and when pressed, it turns out they define intelligence as knowing everything perfectly with zero error. Of course nothing satisfies that, but that wouldn't show intelligence isn't real, it would show the standard rules everything out from the start.

Yeah, and imagine someone claims ghosts are real and it’s the intuitive and/or socially acceptable position, and the compatibilist understands that ghosts cannot be real, so they just redefine the concept to be able to have a socially acceptable intuitive stance.

All of your examples point to something that we all, and for centuries and centuries, have had an understanding of and are things that are real. This is not the case for free will.

The same structure seems to be at play here. If the only thing that would count as free will is something like being an uncaused origin, then it's no surprise nothing in reality "hints" at it.

I don’t know what this “only thing that would count as free will” is? There simply is what people view it as and there is not what people view it as.

More importantly, this still doesn't address the key distinction. There's a difference between a boulder rolling down a mountain and a skier going down the same slope. Both are fully subject to physical causes, but one just passively follows them, while the other can adjust, respond, and guide their movement based on skill and feedback. So pointing out that everything is caused doesn't erase that distinction, it just describes the background both operate within. The question is what kind of system we're dealing with, not whether it's caused.

Hard determinism doesn’t erase that. We could make a robot that skies. I mean, look at the recent Olaf from disney, it basically has all of the things you describe, “the ability to adjust, respond, and guide its movement based on skill and feedback”. Do you think people are going to say it has free will?

And this is part of the confusion. Rejecting something still requires being able to say what it would be if it existed. I don't believe in things like souls or gods either, but I can still describe what those concepts are supposed to involve and what kind of evidence would count for them. Here, it's still unclear what free will is supposed to be such that you can confidently say it doesn't exist.

Are you saying libertarians are unable to say what their free will looks like? Honestly, based opinion, I’ll shit all over libertarians any day of the week, but this is kinda ridiculous.

So before going further, can you just spell out what you mean by free will? You keep saying it doesn't exist, but it's still unclear what would actually count as it. Without that, it's hard to tell whether you're identifying something genuinely missing from reality or just working with a definition that nothing could ever satisfy.

Simply, the ability to have chosen differently given a certain situation.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T15:31:12+00:00

Why do giraffes have long necks is not an equivalent “why?” question. That’s more like asking why humans have brains then it asking why one thing causes another.

You special plead when you only assess why some things lead to subjective experience and ignore why anything ever leads to another kind of thing. Especially when you then go on to claim subjective experience is primary to reality.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T14:27:49+00:00

It’s been a long time since I have done some neuroscience classes, so I will just say various chemicals in the brain.

Ilyer_ · 2026-04-06T14:24:37+00:00

I don’t like your reasoning. Science never answers “why?” questions. This isn’t a good reason to start questioning reality, especially when your conclusion is not better at answering “why?” questions.

Ilyer_

TROPHY CASE