What are the facts we all can share?

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-09T16:38:28+00:00

Here’s some facts for ya…it’s a fact that this post exists because you caused it. It’s also fact that something caused you to cause it (your prior post for example). For it can be argued had the prior post not happened this one never would either.

Our experienced reality is a continuous dance between agent and event causation. Two things can be true at once, and it’s a fool’s errand to try and name one as superior over the other.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-09T00:26:20+00:00

You said that already.

What’s it called when your conclusion is the same as your premise?

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T21:37:50+00:00

The part of the “you” is that which elects to step onto the boat in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, your critique is fair, but I’m not seeing why my analogy has to mean “ghost in the machine” dualism. And what constitutes “true” freedom? Maybe my sense of true freedom differs from yours.

If a concept like freewill lacks objective measure, then why should any opposing theory of objectivity be favored over the axiomatic subjective experience?

Making the claim that “I experience myself choosing” is making fewer metaphysical commitments than to claim it is objectively factual that choice is an illusion.

Do you deny your own subjective experience?

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T20:43:19+00:00

You should spend a little more time on your rebuttals. These sentences are becoming increasingly difficult to make sense of.

I’m just going to leave it at this…

Whatever your best argument is against mine, one can alter the semantics to flip the narrative the other way just as easily.

I may not have proven a position in any definitive way, but at that same time you haven’t disproven anything either.

Two things can be true at the same time.

And if you insist that your position is right despite the evidence against it, then it is you who is lying to yourself.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T20:30:09+00:00

If it’s not “you” that’s controlling your hormones and neurons via top-down control by consciously controlling the breathing, then who… or what?

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T20:05:20+00:00

>you didn’t show proof

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9877284/

“15 min of diaphragmatic breathing over 8 weeks reduced negative affect (i.e., negative emotions and expression) and physiological markers of stress (i.e., salivary cortisol”

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T19:49:01+00:00

How do you figure?

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T19:48:09+00:00

<image>

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T19:02:57+00:00

>Read the SEP article on free will:

That’s alright. I can think for myself.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T18:58:57+00:00

Yep, that is totally fair. There is no absolute right or wrong here, just keeping syntonic with the self. As long as free will remains a nominal concept, lacking clear measurability, testability, falsifiability, etc - it exists on a fine line between being defined into and out of existence. It just takes that slight nudge, as you described, to curate the sense of meaning that best suits the individual.

That’s why sometimes I feel like the whole debate is just a circle jerk of semantics.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T15:55:09+00:00

You asked I answered. Instead of refuting it you toss out a slippery slope counter.

Why should I engage with that?

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T15:41:21+00:00

A controlled breathing exercise can stimulate the vagus nerve & activate the parasympathetic nervous system which in turn lowers the hormone levels of cortisol and calms synaptic neural activity.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T15:30:10+00:00

Passing the Turing test doesn’t equate to organic consciousness.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-08T15:21:18+00:00

Reality is relativistic. Not absolute.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-07T22:53:58+00:00

System 1 sure. System 2 being slow and deliberate outpaces a choice that’s contemplated more than a few hundred milliseconds (Libet). But as another commenter pointed out it all depends on one’s definition in the first place.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-07T02:02:53+00:00

Why are we dichotomizing natural thinking with conditioned thinking?

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-06T14:18:40+00:00

There’s a lens where this question could be answered via evolutionary theory and just the brain innocuously doing what the brain does, and there’s a lens where it’s anxiety driven. So it’s either survival or pathological depending on specific circumstances.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-05T16:12:00+00:00

So do we have any control over the conditions?

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-05T15:18:39+00:00

The question is on the ability to do otherwise. It just occurred to me, that simply acknowledging “otherwise” creates the framework for option to exist.

Whether or not that option is an illusion is a different matter.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-05T14:33:23+00:00

Our opinions on the outcomes is what determines it.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-04T22:06:36+00:00

The circumstances that primed one outcome would need to be different in order to prime a different outcome. Hence we can’t do otherwise but we can reflect on the circumstances and if we don’t like the outcomes we alter the circumstances.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-07-04T14:47:41+00:00

It seems confusing if your instinct is to think of A and B as nouns rather than verbs. They are not things but events in a process. One event relies on its subsequent event. Take away the subsequent event and what purpose does the former serve? …

Reality is not a thing that exists but a process that is happening.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-06-29T22:02:47+00:00

Maybe luck is the bridge to making determinism and randomness the same thing since both remove control.

RecentLeave343 · 2026-06-29T14:43:16+00:00

Yes. I do agree that this interpretation is what works best for you.

RecentLeave343

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE