? Self-contradiction in the above. Either one's decision are determined passively, or one actively determines their own decisions.
No argument that our physical makeup can influence our dispositions. But those particulars do not determine our acts. We can and often do act against them. See the "jelly donut" post.
Nope. After reflection, all externalities are either internalized or rejected. I am always an integrated person and so are you unless diagnosed as having Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).
This causal chain fits entirely within the determinist view of human choice making.
New information doesnt challenge the determinist notion. The question is: at the point of decision making what actual latitude is there? The point of decision making includes whatever information is at hand at the moment. The determinist view says: there is only one choice (or judgement) you can make at a given decision making moment. It does not say you will cling to a certain judgment over time as new information becomes available. (That would be an absurd position to hold, easily refuted by a quick look at anyones life experience.)
What role does the moral agent play in choosing a moral act? The determinist says none; the Christian says in sin the moral agent is fully responsible for his act. (So does the law.)
pressbooks.online.ucf.edu
Are you the same person you were when you were 12? When you were 16? 25? 40? Obviously not. You know more at each stage, you mature as you get older, your brain is till developing until your early twenties. You gain more knowledge that directs your decisions. 'Human nature' is just a rough approximation of what each of us is. And what you are has changed over the years. And you change depending on the time of day, your mood, the weather, your diet, the secretion of hormones, your glucose levels, whether you were late for work, whether you are angry, happy, sad, depressed.
And you'll now make different decisions. The knowledge you have gained will determine that fact.
Well, I've asked a number of times if you can give me an example to show that determinism is not true. To show me anything that isn't caused. All that's been offered so far is someone confusing an unpredictable system with a determinate one.
Then let's stick with one that you do have a clear perspective on.
This is not a theological discussion. And no, the law makes allowances and adjusts the culpability of an act for any number of reasons.
You keep raising that as an argument. But nobody is denying it. You make the decision. I'll have to repeat this yet again: The fact that we make decisions is not an argument against free will.
I've only posted 2 or 3 examples. There are thousands available covering the topics discussed that all point in the same direction. That we are changed in countless ways of which we are personally unaware. Else what would the situation be? That we are all exactly the same? That no changes to our physical make-up ever occur at any time that happen unbidden?
So you can't make decisions without being influenced by those externalities. You say you can reject them, but you are unaware of the vast majority of them. How can you reject something of which you know nothing?
That's not possible. We are all completely unaware of almost all of them.
Yes. I am as human now as I was at my conception.
Changes in my physical or mental states do not make me any more or less of a human being.
Nope. I have and will always be a human being.
The accidental changes in particular human beings do not change their nature.
? Nor was my post a theological question but a moral question which bears on the existence of free will.
Yes, that's correct. And we are still looking for an argument that free will in human beings does not exist.
The studies you cited were poorly designed and admittedly the authors noted as much in their conclusions. Just as a thousand bad apples in a barrel do not make a good apple, a thousand poorly designed studies do not make good evidence. Cite a statistically well designed objectively determined study that evidences free will does not exist in human beings.
I appreciate that there are faith positions on this matter. And legal positions and intuitive positions. But... I'm questioning what should be the rational position based on the evidence available.
I'm sad that you are departing prior to presenting any reasoning that would overturn the determinist position. All you offer are assertions that, basically, "we just obviously have free will".
Arguments that free will does not exist? Do you mean the untestable OP assertion above? Or the other assertion, also untestable, "if you were me, you'd have done the same thing." Those aren't arguments. I haven't seen any arguments. Bye.
