Free will and determinism

[Aldebaran]

PLEASE TRY TO KEEP CALM AND NOT MAKE THINGS PERSONAL ​

 

[o_mlly]

Who I am has been determined by everything that has happened to me.

Really? So, you have no filters to freely integrate some events and reject others? Is your position on everything based on the last person you read or talked to? Are you that plastic? Apparently not.

If the universe is deterministic then all decisions are determined by antecedent conditions.

I reject the truth of your conditional as universally applicable to both material and immaterial objects, and so I quickly dismiss your consequent.

As a materialist, you perforce deny the existence of things immaterial. But you must admit you are a conscious being, no? So, how much does consciousness weigh? How wide, long and deep is it? Where in the body can we find it? Well, "I dunno" seems to be your correct answer. Same with "free will".

It really seems like you haven't read anything I've written about free will. Nobody, least of all me, has said anything like that.

You handwave and rebuff all efforts that encourage you to think through your claim and so substantiate its validity or not.

 

[Bradskii]

Really? So, you have no filters to freely integrate some events and reject others? Is your position on everything based on the last person you read or talked to?

Why would it be the last person I talked to or read? Can you please explain? It would help that if you make a statement then you'd give your reasons for making it. So we have 'it seems that your position on everything is based on the last person you read or talked to, because...'

Can you you please finish the sentence so I know why you said it? Incidently, the last person I read on free will was Dan Dennett a few days ago. Trying to convince us that free will is compatible with a deterministic universe. Bear that in mind when you reply.

I reject the truth of your conditional as universally applicable to both material and immaterial objects, and so I quickly dismiss your consequent.

Then show me an example.

As a materialist, you perforce deny the existence of things immaterial. But you must admit you are a conscious being, no? So, how much does consciousness weigh? How wide, long and deep is it? Where in the body can we find it?

Consciousness is a process. How much does a process weigh? It's a silly question. It's like asking how much does running weigh. But where does it take place? That's easy to answer. It's a process that takes place in various parts of the brain. Unless you you can show me otherwise (Warning! Dualism Ahead!).

You handwave and rebuff all efforts that encourage you to think through your claim and so substantiate its validity or not.?

You've not given me anything to wave away. You're just saying 'you're wrong'. Give me a positive claim that I can examine. If it's useless then I'll be doing some of that hand waving business. It it's not then it might lead somewhere.

And what was the reason why you kept asking for a moral decision when you do nothing with the one I gave you? Can you please address it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You've not given me anything to wave away. You're just saying 'you're wrong'.

This is the most ironic statement of the thread.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Ana the Ist

Thank you for making me realize just how much "I don't care".

Definitely on my way out of CF for awhile, and onto other things.

@almost everyone else on here

This site is full of some of the most greatest and most stubborn truth deniers I've ever met, so have fun with the rest of the discussions (if you can truly call them that) for awhile without me.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@EVERYONE

And to just to take one final stab at it before logging off for awhile, I'm going to just one simple question?

This "discussion" has been going on for awhile now, and I'm just going to ask you one single simple question about this subject, aka "determinism and free will", etc? With everything you know about it and all that has been discussed so far about ir, I'm just simply going to ask you to try to be 100% neutral and objective about it for a minute, and just have you 100% honestly ask yourself that if this subject was put in the manner of a percentage as to which one is more likely to be true or not (over 50%), then which way do you think those scales would tip or lean, etc? if we were to put this in the manner of a percentage and you promised to be 100% neutral and objective about it, etc. Anyway, which way do you think those scales would tip or lean if you could do that, and you were 100% honest about it? Because that's all I am wanting from you right now really. But I also know that not very many people are actually ever going to answer this question 100% truthfully and honestly also, etc. Because they're maybe not capable of that yet, etc. Because there still as of yet still exists in them some severe and very strong bias when it comes to this subject, etc.

Anyway, which percentage do you think is or would be greater or higher?

(I may or may not check this later)

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm 99%...being an honest materialist and recognising that proof isn't an option.

 

[o_mlly]

Can you you please finish the sentence so I know why you said it? Incidently, the last person I read on free will was Dan Dennett a few days ago. Trying to convince us that free will is compatible with a deterministic universe. Bear that in mind when you reply.

Sure. But first help me out. Have you never had an original thought? Your argument suggests not.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure. But first help me out. Have you never had an original thought? Your argument suggests not.

All my thoughts are prompted by antecedent conditions. Now if you can finish the sentence and address the moral problem...

 

[Injeun]

Of course we have free will or free choice to make of ourselves and of our lives what we choose.

 

[o_mlly]

All my thoughts are prompted by antecedent conditions.

Sorry to hear that. No sense debating with you. Let me know when your antecedent conditions once again change your mind on free will.

As to those antecedent conditions, we decide, as Bob Seger wrote: What to leave in, what to leave out.

You admit in this thread that you decided to leave out Dennett's and leave in Sapolsky's arguments on the nature of free will. Why you chose the scientist over the philosopher is evident in your many posts in this forum.

 

[Bradskii]

Sorry to hear that. No sense debating with you.

You posts are some of the antecedent conditions. As are the books and articles I read. The videos I watch. The people I talk to. How on earth do you change your mind on any given matter? What a weird thing to say.

As to those antecedent conditions, we decide, as Bob Seger wrote: What to leave in, what to leave out.

Yeah, we decide to accept or reject information depending on how persuasive it is. How it stands up to information we already have. You'd do this whether you had free will or not.

You admit in this thread that you decided to leave out Dennett's and leave in Sapolsky's arguments on the nature of free will. Why you chose the scientist over the philosopher is evident in your many posts in this forum.

Of course it is. Sapolski had the better arguments regarding this matter. I've read a lot of Dennett and learned a lot. But I was surprised how shallow his position on this actually is. Sorry...his position was.

Now again, you asked for a moral position and I gave you one. Can you please address it?

And so I know why you said it, can you please complete the sentence: 'it seems that your position on everything is based on the last person you read or talked to, because...'

 

[Bradskii]

Of course we have free will or free choice to make of ourselves and of our lives what we choose.

Can you give me an example of a decision that you made that changed your life and the reasons why you chose it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Ana the Ist

Thank you for making me realize just how much "I don't care".

@almost everyone else on here

This site is full of some of the most greatest and most stubborn truth deniers I've ever met, so have fun with the rest of the discussions (if you can truly call them that) for awhile without me.

God Bless.

I'm sure you realize you don't simply speak truth into existence anymore than the OP does. You can't assert physics you don't understand as evidence.

If you were genuinely curious to any possible flaws in the argument....logically....then you wouldn't have dismissed the first logical flaw I pointed out as mere "philosophy". I don't know where you think logic came from...but perhaps you should consider checking sometime.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course it is. Sapolski had the better arguments regarding this matter. I've read a lot of Dennett and learned a lot. But I was surprised how shallow his position on this actually is. Sorry...his position was.

Now again, you asked for a moral position and I gave you one. Can you please address it?

Hilariously, Sapolsky doesn't believe that you can justifiably hold someone responsible for moral or immoral behaviors....and that such concepts are myth....illusions. They simply don't exist for hard determinists like him.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure. But first help me out. Have you never had an original thought? Your argument suggests not.

The very concept of thinking implies a sort of agency. Under hard determinism....thinking doesn't occur so much as neurotransmitters send electrical impulses across synapses and this results in corresponding motor function.

 

[o_mlly]

What a weird thing to say.

Here is a summary of this ~ 2500 posts thread.

The OP states his premise as a conditional:

"If the universe is determined then there is no free will".​

Which is identical to the claim:

"If there is no free will then there is no free will".​

Which is the same logic as:

"If there are no unicorns then there are no unicorns".​

​

The OP then offers as evidence his autobiography. And challenges everyone to prove that his negative assertion is wrong.

Now that's really weird.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm sure you realize you don't simply speak truth into existence

I can, and do, a lot of the time.

But apparently, just not this time yet, etc.

You can't assert physics you don't understand as evidence.

A child can clearly see and understand it well enough at the macro level to easily see or understand it well enough, etc. You don't have to be a physicist to see it, etc.

If you were genuinely curious to any possible flaws in the argument....logically....then you wouldn't have dismissed the first logical flaw I pointed out as mere "philosophy". I don't know where you think logic came from...but perhaps you should consider checking sometime.

If they were alive today, they would all be determinists.

Or they would at least be forced into saying that determinism is the most likely possibility, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Injeun]

Can you give me an example of a decision that you made that changed your life and the reasons why you chose it?

Because it was easy and fun, I decided to skip school even though I knew it was wrong. It became a habit and I didn't graduate. So I took whatever job came along. There were many decisions that I made in my life that I knew were wrong. But I took the easy way. Jesus Christ gave a good talk about this concept: the straight and narrow as opposed to all else.

 

[Aaron112]

So I took whatever job came along.

Did you ever not work ?