Corey Rebhahn (Morgue): The Problem of Free Will

 

You wouldn’t think humans could doubt their own free will, but many do. Many go out of their way – they freely choose (or do they?!) – to insist that they are robots, and so is everyone they’re arguing with even though those others emphatically deny that they are robots. So, either it’s astounding that some people believe themselves free when they are not, or it’s astounding that some people deny that they are free even though they are.

 

In a free system, there’s nothing to stop stupid people from freely imagining they are not free and arguing for that bizarre position. People are free to be totally wrong! However, in a 100% unfree system, how could anyone imagine they are free? Where would the notion of freedom even come from in such a system? It would constitute an immediate category error and impossibility. People are not free to be wrong in such a system – so why are they wrong, i.e., why are unfree people wrong when they say they are free? How can people hold wrong beliefs in an unfree system that doesn’t contain any scope for free ideas? How were these wrong beliefs about freedom generated in a system that excludes freedom? How can an unfree system generate wrong beliefs, and indeed logically impossible beliefs in a system devoid of freedom?

 

Yesterday, we saw a comment from someone called James Smith. He said,

Here again we have an example of what we refer to as “militant stupidity”. Let’s just deconstruct what this person says:

 

1) “Illuminists are JUST AS brainwashed as Hyperians are regarding the nature of reality.”

 

So, the implication is that James Smith, some random guy on social media, is an authority on the nature of reality. He ought to check his grandiosity and malignant narcissism. By the way, there is no such thing as “brainwashing” in a system lacking free will. All that ever happens in such a system is what was always, inevitably, going to happen, so how can you “brainwash” someone to do something different from what they were going to do anyway? The “brainwasher” has no free will, and the “brainwashed” has no free will. All that’s happening is the deterministic unfolding of the compulsory laws of physics operating on collections of physical atoms. Why refer to “brainwashing” – which implies intentionality (which of course is impossible in a system where no one has any input at all regarding what they do or don’t do … because they completely lack free will!) – in preference to “inevitable deterministic causation as per the laws of physics”? Even to use the term “brainwashing” is actually to accept both the existence of free will and the possibility of changing someone’s free will using some freely chose technique (“brainwashing”)! Ho, ho, ho.

 

2) “Both of them believe in freewill, which has ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT been proven false! (Beyond ANY possible doubt or uncertainty AT ALL…)”

 

This person doth protest too much. What he means is that he watched a few YouTube videos by that well-known vegan genius “CosmicSkeptic” – so much smarter than the host of geniuses throughout history who have defended free will – and was so convinced by these vids that he believes them to constitute 100% proof of the impossibility of free will. Wow, that English student must be incredibly impressive. Except he’s not. We’ve watched his videos too and totally trashed all of his juvenile, undergraduate arguments, reflecting a wholesale ignorance of the debate concerning free will. Why would we be surprised? He’s just yet another narcissistic influencer on social media gagging for narcissistic supply. This guy makes videos arguing the case for veganism, yet if, as he says with his 100% certainty that there is no such thing as free will, then he did not choose to be a vegan and he has no choice in making videos promoting veganism. No argument he makes belongs to him – all “arguments” in fact belong to collections of atoms and the inevitable forces acting on them! – and in fact, there is no “him”. He has no agency. He cannot decide to do this rather than that. After all, he has no free will. He cannot choose not to be vegan, he cannot choose not to make videos about veganism, and James Smith cannot choose not to watch this person’s videos, and cannot choose not to be 100% convinced by them. While others – such as us – also had no choice but to watch this person’s videos and also had no choice in deciding that he was 100% WRONG. And all of these exact same considerations apply to CosmicSkeptic’s videos regarding free will. Since he has no free will – by his own argument! – then he has no choice regarding making videos denying the existence of free will and he has no input regarding any of the arguments he makes. He does not choose these arguments – given that he has no free will and can choose nothing! (what will be will be!) – and is merely a mouthpiece for the inevitable consequences of the laws of physics acting on collections of atoms (human bodies). He never reflects on arguments or weighs them. He never chooses to take seriously the opposition arguments. He can’t. He will do whatever he was mandated to do by hard determinism! He has zero say in it. He’s … A ROBOT! Moreover, the people who watch his videos and reject his arguments have no choice in that either. They are not “perversely” rejecting CosmicSkeptic’s arguments. They are as helpless when it comes to rejecting his arguments as he was when he made the arguments. In fact, there is no “argument” because that implies choice, persuasion, the ability to change one’s mind, and so on … all of which are impossible if free will does not exist. So, according to James Smith, it has been “proven” that free will does not exist, yet – if free will does not exist – he has no choice when making such a statement (he has no free will … doh!) and it cannot possibly contain any truth content! Why? Because all of the people who go around saying that the existence of free will is 100% proven (i.e., the opposite of what James Smith and CosmicSkeptic say) had no choice either in making that statement. So, in this “no free will” scenario, we have a system based on physical atoms with no free will and the laws of physics with no free will that generates some people who say that it is 100% proven that free will DOES NOT exist and other people who say that it is 100% proven that free will DOES exist. You have to marvel at the ability of atoms without free will and laws of physics without free will to create the illusion, the delusion, the total falsehood – in some people but not in others! – that free will does in fact exist. And of course, none of the people who believe in free will came to this “bizarre” belief through anything other than unfree processes! So, James Smith and CosmicSkeptic, how do you know you’re “right” about free will (about its non-existence) when you factually exist in a world where unfree atoms and unfree physical laws generate people who say the opposite? Neither you nor they have any choice in what you respectively say (the opposite of each other!), so how can anyone be “right” and anyone “wrong” in such a system? No one chooses what they say or what they “believe”. The advocate of the existence of free will is as “convinced” as the opponent of free will – but in fact neither is responsible for what they say, or can control what they say, or what conclusions they draw. Apart from the glaring fact that it is FORMALLY IMPOSSIBLE – a literal category error – for a system that has no freedom to generate the concept of freedom (how could such a concept ever come about if it has no ontological correlate and is 100% impossible – could rocks ever imagine they were “free”?!), how is the scientific principle of falsification even possible? If people are completely unfree to believe that free will either exists or doesn’t exist – they have no say or choice in it at all – how can any proposition be falsified, or verified for that matter? If you have no choice in what you believe – because you have no free will – what could “falsification” possibly mean? You can’t choose to accept that something has been falsified or not. “Falsification” implies that people can change their minds, that they have free will! But we are told that they do not. The same applies to any possible verification principle. Again, that implies that minds can be changed by the “evidence”, but they can’t be. Minds have no freedom to be persuaded or convinced by anything – not by facts, evidence, proof or anything else. In fact, the entire scientific method – the whole basis of science! – is rendered absurd because it implies that people have some sort of say in what they think. They don’t! People who subscribe to the scientific method do so because the laws of physics mandated that they do (in the no free will scenario). And people who do not do so because the laws of physics mandated that too. So science itself is total nonsense if free will does not exist. We cannot know if anything is TRUE because we have no say in what we accept as true OR false. The unfree world “decides” for us. It’s not up to us. Nothing is up to us. There is no us! Go on, James Smith, explain why “you” exist. You don’t. You’re just a collection of unfree atoms subject to unfree laws – and “you” state that this is 100% proven (even though other people look at exactly the same stuff and say it is 100% disproven!). Who’s right? There is NO PROCESS in an unfree world which could lead to anything being anything other than it is, and anyone holding any views other than those they hold. It’s a machine system. No one’s at home. Life is redundant. Mind is totally superfluous. So why does it exist at all? What happened to Occam’s razor? Why does nature contain redundant features? How did they “evolve”? In fact, how can evolution be true if everything is 100% determined? Nothing “evolves”. There is no random mutation and no natural selection … there is just hard determinism. Nothing could ever be other than it is!

 

3) “And (I), am a SUPREMELY skeptical person by nature.…!”

 

There is no “you”. According to your own beliefs, you have no say in whether or not you are “skeptical”. Even to mention that word implies choice and freedom, that things could be different – which, according to you, they can’t be! If you were “credulous” rather than skeptical, what could you do about it? FUCK ALL. So it’s LAUGHABLE for you to refer to being a skeptic. You are whatever the “world” made you. You have no say in it. EVER. And in fact, you are totally CREDULOUS, totally UNSKEPTICAL, towards your own beliefs. Why else are we having to tell you all this? You never subjected your own views to any critique – and, according to you, you CAN’T (you have no free will). So much for “skepticism”! What a joke. Why does James Smith take pride in being a “skeptic” when, according to his own faith (in the absence of free will), he couldn’t have been anything else? It’s not as if he had a free choice and chose to be “skeptical” – ho, ho, ho. Isn’t it amazing how these people blow their own heads off?! Mate, you ought to join Hyperianism. They talk insane, grandiose shit too! By the way, James Smith, we are not trying to convince you of anything. You have identified yourself as a robot with no free will, so it’s 100% provably pointless talking to you. Have a nice day! If you were serious about your faith in a world devoid of freedom, you would never engage in any pretence that you are free to say what you are saying and that anyone else is free to listen to you and agree or disagree with you. Of course, though, your behavior, according to you, is inevitable. You cannot change it. So, you are doomed to be an annoying fuckwit forever. I didn’t freely insult you there, as you well understand. Apparently, I have no free will! My fingers just started typing that you are a cretin. My bad! Or rather, the “bad” of my atoms and the laws of physics! It was nothing to do with me, gov. I’m just the helpless messenger. And if you respond with insults and protestations, I will in no way hold you responsible. You know not what you do. Neither do your atoms, but they do it anyway. SHEEZ!

 

4) “So take it from someone like that [a skeptic]!”

 

Er, do cretinous skeptics – who have no skepticism towards their own cretinous skepticism – have some sort of special, magical authority? According to your own beliefs, you had no choice in being a so-called skeptic, and we had no choice in laughing at you for saying so. Get some new material, mate. This is getting really stale. Talking to a robot is no fun. When did you last fail the Turing test? Are you going to get all butt-hurt now? But you can’t – you never have a say in what you do. You don’t choose anything. Is that why you refuse to be accountable for your fuckwittery? Seriously, go and join the Hyperians. We like all the idiots to be in the same clown car. And don’t think of trying to argue back. It won’t be “you” doing the arguing – just your atoms and the laws of physics. Why bother? Just follow the path of least resistance. Oh dear, you can’t – you never have a choice regarding what you do. It’s all INEVITABLE. You yourself say so.

 

5) “Reality is (100%!) deterministic and certain.”

 

Yawn.

 

6) “There is no room for freewill anywhere!”

 

Yawn. We’ve written twenty million words explaining why there is. What have you done? Watched a couple of videos by CosmicSkeptic and fallen in love with him.

 

7) “I mean, we live in a fucking MATHEMATICAL reality for fucks sake!”

 

EXACTLY! Only ontological mathematics GUARANTEES free will!

 

8) “What do you think that MEANS????!”

 

We’ve written twenty million words on the subject! What do YOU think it means (having not read our twenty million words, thus proving that you don’t care for researching your opinions and beliefs and all the counterarguments – of course, it’s not up to you … you’re a robot!).

 

9) “It means that the flowing points were ALWAYS going to follow their mathematical (inbuilt) trajectory! No matter what!”

 

Oh dear, you plainly have no clue what ont math is all about.

 

10) “There is what scientists refer to as the readiness potential!”

 

Wow! Who knew?

 

11) “(Which refers to the brain basically having already made a decision BEFORE the person becomes conscious of it and goes along with it and follows!)”

 

Nice to see that you 100% bought the spiel of scientific materialism and empiricism and totally rejected mathematical idealism and rationalism. Nietzsche said,

Don’t you understand that people can give entirely different interpretations – much more logical and rational ones – of the same “facts”? Go on, mate, define consciousness in scientific terms. Good luck with that! What’s the scientific symbol for consciousness? What equation does it feature in? Must have missed that one. How can you talk about consciousness in a paradigm that EXCLUDES IT?! Mate, go do some logic classes. It’s for the best. Have you never thought that the mind – an immaterial mathematical singularity (monad) outside space and time – is what is conscious and it has to send a mathematical signal to the physical brain in space and time to enact its will and it’s only THEN that you have the EXPERIENCE of spacetime consciousness? Mate, we use an entirely different paradigm from you – based on reason, logic and mathematics – while you cling to the fallible, delusional, unreliable, ambiguous, uncertain, limited human senses that define scientific “thinking”. SAD! Garbage in, garbage out! GIGO! Get an education. Read our books. Don’t slag off a system you know nothing about. You just prove how ignorant you are, and what a perfect person of faith you are. An ideal Hyperian, in other words. Those fuckwits don’t think anything through either. And they also – UNKNOWINGLY – subscribe to a mad ideology that denies freedom, as we shall analyze tomorrow. These people say, in agreement with the “auto-didact” Walter Russell,

Are you an auto-didact by any chance, James?

 

ANYWAYS, did y’all did see Immensely Fat Jan’s latest deadstream? How can anyone not reach the conclusion that this person – Mindless Dullard – is incredibly seriously mentally ill? What a totally disgusting person she is, truly nauseating – in other words, the PERFECT HYPERIAN.

 

Why does Fatso hog the chat? Why don’t these people just have a zoom call if they want a “hyperfam”? Who the fuck needs Fatso or Psycho Porgy mindlessly droning on, and getting paid for it? Anyone can talk shit! Hyperians do nothing else.

 

Another Rebhahn deadstream tonight! Once again the circus clown does his act and his ever-diminishing band of fans shout louder to compensate for all the empty seats. Everyone knows this Hyperian cult is dying. Why bother going on? Find something else. Move on with life. Let this wounded animal die. Stop feeding Corey Rebhahn his narcissistic supply. IT’S OVER.