Is free-will an illusion?

Good you know what I mean then.

Cairo has been a nightmare from several decades ago when I visited. We did get a police escort from the airport to our hotel. But the other sites in Egypt is worth the visit.

It gives you an appreciation of darwinian dynamics, where chaos meets cut-throat competition... You can't survive that and be a determinist.

Traffic jams are pretty bad in Cairo, granted, but at least they don't have water buffalo carts on their highways. Even a pedestrian goes twice as fast as these guys:

To be honest, I don't remember seeing water buffalos on the streets in Egypt. I remember hundreds of cars jammed on the streets of Cairo.

I sometimes post Olivier up so I'm part of his entourage. He is not the dodo you say. On the other hand, I've liked your comments sometimes over the years. I've only mild interest in the free will spat that I have my own opinions on, more interested in thread dynamics. I don't remember who all has posted what here, now a long thread, but, after first enjoying the spats a bit since a bunch of you antagonists can be snappy sharp, I get tired of it.

Oh, and I'm not a dog.

Any of you been to Saudi Arabia? That's on my mind this week, from a couple of articles from different sources, speaking of Free-will.

A theory that is by its own definition inconsistent because it both requires determinism to be true, willing has an I, a causer, and willing determines an action, while on the other hand, free willing, requires determinism be false because it discounts extreme minutia on environmental and genetic causers, or even sub atomic causers must be wrong hands down. What is there to debate on this ? As for dualism, well is like believing in ghosts or things from another realm...anyone familiar with the roots of the idea of atomism understands immediately why dualism brakes down the mechanics of the world...Two fundamentally different substances in reality could not interact. Hence why we looked for atoms for two thousand years. The substance must be one. Note please the I am addressing first order reality here, there is nothing wrong with second order chemistry and its diversity of arrangements that generates different substances. Now Olivier and some lunatics out there believe dualism is a valid proposition, while the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't give it a second thought. On the free will subject I have confronted him to provide his formal stance among 20 or so possible well know positions, guess what ? None, he evaded the subject formally all the time and all he has presented are common sense superficial arguments. Either he is not familiarized with the details of the topic or he deliberately trolls and derails proper debating because he can't stand lose a fight. He has proved he is resentful stubborn and uneducated, often venal and poisonous.
I have a good image of you, settled, mature, curious about the world, love to travel and gentle and sensible. I know your interest on the subject is "en passent" but the details are really important here and require some degree of time and obsession to get through, if not really into it its best to leave it alone.

Best regards Filipe de Albuquerque

One of my best friends is a non dualist, oh, and a violinist.
I, on the other hand, am fine with the duality business.

I'm not so fine with the insults, but that's your preogative.

Are all violinists, dualists?

Insults are the big boogeyman on the closet these days. Insults exist for thousand of years because they serve a purpose in culture. Granted most of the time they are harmful unnecessary or gratuitous, but not so rarely they prove to be a genuine form of putting people in their place when they don't understand conventional civilized HONEST conversation. Olivier is a master derailer and a dodger, he doesn't debate he obscures and simplifies talks to the point its not possible to not vent off with him. I have him n ignore because he is pompous while clearly demonstrating lack of a level of abstraction to debate certain subjects at an high level. He doesn't understand the lingo. So its best we step out of each others way. Problem is the man has a fetish to come after me every now n then because he probably has to much free time or because I have biten his azz a couple of times....whatever is the reason I don't care. I don't want to debate him because I find a wall when I talk to him. At 42 years old I lost patience to preaching at walls...

Wait till you're 80 like me, and you'll have understanding and patience you never dreamed of.

He's a sore loser, that's all.

The point of philosophy used to be to learn how to live, supposedly in a wise way. But too often, it has become a way to feel superior to the masses. I know how odd that sounds, but it's true. I could explain. These guys adopt philosophies that are systematically anti-common sense, often quite esotheric, which do not help them to live at all (they are inapplicable most of the time) but it helps them to loathe, and that's the whole point.

I call it the angry white determinist phenomenon.

I have addressed each and everyone of your points times in great details, only to see you explode in spectacular anger each and every time. I'm tired of your petulant child charade.

There's a fundamental contradiction in the reductionist materialism view of the human mind, which is that all the sciences and philosophies of this world, including their own, come from the human mind itself. If the mind is an illusion or an epiphenomenon, then it follows that all the products of the mind, including philosophy and science, are illusions or epiphenomena. They don't matter. Therefore why even bother? Why do you reductionist types write essays and articles and A2K posts to defend the opinions of your illusionary minds?

And why should pay attention to what a self-described epiphenomenon has to say?

Try to understand this simple sentence if you want a really open frontal honest debate. It says all it is possible to say about Reality...

Illusions, if illusions, are TRUE illusions !

While we all agree epiphenomena engulfs all our perception of reality as you well pointed out, there still is, one last thing that is not "eaten up" with it...the EXPERIENCING !!!
Its not the "I", its not the "Subject", its not "Counsciousness", nor "Mind" that endures...those are all concepts and yes subjective epiphenomena of our perception of reality... but that granted abstractly speaking logic dictates that what lasts its the EXPERIENCING itself without attempts of epistemic ordering on what is what...this is the final step Descartes missed out.

Needless to say ironicly this comes full circle to Realism again...out from a simple logic abstraction.

Define "true illusion". Looks like just another contradiction to me.


Nothing endures. Even the universe could go burst. What matters is what EXISTS at any given time. So you find refuge in the position that "experiencing" exists for real? And how does experiencing produces philosophy and science, then?

Really ?
I dont have to place a finger at epistemology n say this or that is an actual illusion...
The only thing I need to establish is that if all our experiences are epiphenomena then epiphenomena themselves are as illusions factual epiphenomena as experiencing occurs.

In a simple form a true illusion is an actual illusion one that is not false.
While the epistemic problem may engage with any concept it still in order to be an epistemic problem not to unravel itself...Experiencing cannot be denied without washing away with it the very problem it raises.

You must have confused me with a fan of mumbo jumbo philosprache.

How does experiencing produces philosophy and science, then?

And if minds don't exist, why do you personalize the issue so much, and who is this bad bad Olivier everybody talks about?

Again instead of addressing the clear answers I gave you you devolve to a common sense dodge soap opera of the issue. You do not want a serious debate so as expected I withdraw from it. Its pointless. Have a nice day !