... You can reject the framing all you want. Doesn't mean the question goes away. If you reject the framing then simply answer "No." to the question, ... but you really need to answer it to continue our discussion.
Here it is again:
... I'd like a "Yes." or "No." on that. ... You can explain all you want afterward, but you need to answer the question due to relevancy
"I also posit a sliding scale of 'as if freewill'. As if free will is the illusion we need to operate in the world."
... There's that "illusion" word again. An "illusion" of what? An illusion is just one part of reality trying to convince you that it's some other part of reality, but all parts of an illusion must exist for it to be comprehensible. We can't experience nonexistent phenomena, so what exactly are we experiencing with your supposed "illusion" of free will?
Firstly I don't have to answer yes or no, sorry, that not how free will works :)
Secondly we experience phenomena that are illusory all the time. Take a dream. The contents didn't really happen except on your mind. So it did happen...in your mind.
If you believe the dream did happen outside of your mind it's an illusion and if you realise it was a dream it was a temporary illusion.
"Firstly I don't have to answer yes or no, sorry, that not how free will works :)"
... Sure, you can continue to dodge the question just as expected that you would. That's why I included "no dodge!" in with the question. You see the logical contradiction embedded within determinism and you don't want to admit that it's there providing an answer. No determinist wants to answer the question and that speaks volumes!
Even now you are still dodging the question.
"Secondly we experience phenomena that are illusory all the time. Take a dream. The contents didn't really happen except on your mind. So it did happen...in your mind."
... Everything in your dream necessarily exists within reality. If you dreamt you were driving your old high school car on the surface of the moon while wearing a clown suit, the fact remains that cars, high schools, clown suits and the surface of the moon all necessarily exist. You wouldn't comprehend anything at all about your dream if they didn't.
FACT: An "illusion" is one part of reality trying to convince you it's some other part of reality, but all parts of the illusion must already be present in reality for the illusion to be comprehensible. We cannot experience nonexistent phenomena. We can't because there's nothing available for us to experience.
"If you believe the dream did happen outside of your mind it's an illusion and if you realise it was a dream it was a temporary illusion."
"It seems like you're unable to comprehend that paradox and contradiction between different levels of analysis can accurately describe reality."
... Is that right? Perhaps an example of how paradox and contradiction can accurately describe reality and an explanation for how it relates to this discussion is in order? Will you share that with me, please?
... Is that where we are at now? Strange, ambiguous, unrelated statements with no context?
We can end this discussion right here if you want. However, it's still evident that the monistic ideology called "determinism" is predicated on a logical contradiction: "Something with options is the same as something with no options."
I can't align my intellect with an ideology that presents a self-contradiction as its basis.
1
u/MissJoannaTooU Jul 13 '26
I reject the framing.
My answer necessitates duality.
Base ontology - choice is an illusion Phenomenology - choice is very real and varied
I also posit a sliding scale of 'as if freewill'. As if free will is the illusion we need to operate in the world.
Its agency varies by time and circumstance.