Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

The dictionary definition of free will assumes a symmetrical chooser standing neutrally between these forces, but psychology and neuroscience don’t find any such chooser. That’s why the definition is incoherent.

I have no idea what you are saying there and no idea of what your previous posts along the same lines are referring to.

 

[Bradskii]

The empirical picture is asymmetrical. Compassion arises automatically from one system, and the counter‑impulse that blunts it arises automatically from another system that’s tracking personal cost, discomfort, or threat. There is no neutral chooser between them.

Sometimes if you're compassionate then you will decide to act compassionately. Sometimes you won't because it will personally cost you in some way and you decide not to. What on earth are we supposed and to take from that? That sometimes we act against a natural instinct?

Well...yeah. Are you trying to bring something new to the discussion? Because if I try really hard to decipher what you are saying, it just appears to agree with the op.

 

[childeye 2]

Sometimes if you're compassionate then you will decide to act compassionately. Sometimes you won't because it will personally cost you in some way and you decide not to. What on earth are we supposed and to take from that? That sometimes we act against a natural instinct?

Step 1: Understand that compassion is not the product of deliberation. You can't choose/decide to have compassion. It shows up where people see suffering. This is why we don't choose/decide to weep or grieve.
step 2: Understand that when compassion comes, there is another thought that "self references" involuntarily and considers the cost to self. If you return focus on the other person, it breaks the self-referencing and compassion takes over. If you continue self-referencing compassion decays.

Please notice that the compassion doesn't come by deliberation, but the self-referencing which happens in the mind causes the compassion to decay. <- That is asymmetry in psycholinguistics. That asymmetry proves that there is no such thing as a neutral will in the moral/immoral context.

Why is that important? It means the choice/option is not symmetrical in the moral/immoral context.

Well...yeah. Are you trying to bring something new to the discussion? Because if I try really hard to decipher what you are saying, it just appears to agree with the op.

Let me tell you a story. There was a man in a neighborhood who kidnapped a four-year-old child from her family home and kept her in a dungeon for twenty years only two blocks away. Long story short, the little girl now a woman escaped; and when they came to arrest the culprit many people had gathered to watch them take him away. Then one guy in the crowd mentioned how because he had free will, he could have chosen to do that but chose not to. Everyone in the crowd who heard him say that looked at him as if they wanted to beat the heck out of him. Do you understand why? Because he talked as if there was a choice/option between right and wrong. This man believed in a neutral free will which is a contradiction in reasoning in the moral/immoral context because a neutral free will is symmetrical while morality/immorality is asymmetrical.

So, this is what I have longed to contribute to the thread:
1) The truth that compassion is a derivative of Agape energy in the moral context
2) The truth that when people are conduits for compassion it increases exponentially in a society
3) When people self-reference compassion decays
4) Where compassion decays in a society it affects an entire community
5) There is a positive free will based on faith not choice; free from self-referencing through the realization of the damage it causes
6) There is a negative free will based on unfaith; a false sense of freedom.

The only true and coherent free will, in the moral/immoral context, is the will that sees love was the only path all along.

 

[Bradskii]

Step 1: Understand that compassion is not the product of deliberation. You can't choose/decide to have compassion. It shows up where people see suffering. This is why we don't choose/decide to weep or grieve.

Yes. Of course.

step 2: Understand that when compassion comes, there is another thought that "self references" involuntarily and considers the cost to self. If you return focus on the other person, it breaks the self-referencing and compassion takes over. If you continue self-referencing compassion decays.

Again, I agree.

Please notice that the compassion doesn't come by deliberation, but the self-referencing which happens in the mind causes the compassion to decay. <- That is asymmetry in psycholinguistics. That asymmetry proves that there is no such thing as a neutral will in the moral/immoral context.

I've no interest in 'asymmetry in psycholinguistics'.

Why is that important? It means the choice/option is not symmetrical in the moral/immoral context.

Not interested. Has nothing to do with free will.

Then one guy in the crowd mentioned how because he had free will, he could have chosen to do that but chose not to.

Making a choice doesn't prove free will.

Because he talked as if there was a choice/option between right and wrong.

That choice is always available.

This man believed in a neutral free will which is a contradiction in reasoning in the moral/immoral context because a neutral free will is symmetrical while morality/immorality is asymmetrical.

Enough with this symetrical/asymetrical business. It's not relevant.

So, this is what I have longed to contribute to the thread:
1) The truth that compassion is a derivative of Agape energy
2) The truth that when people are conduits for compassion it increases exponentially in a society
3) When people self-reference compassion decays
4) Where compassion decays in a society it affects an entire community
5) There is a positive free will based on faith not choice; free from self-referencing through the realization of the damage it causes
6) There is a negative free will based on unfaith; a false sense of freedom.

The only true and coherent free will, in the moral/immoral context, is the will that sees love was the only path all along.

All completely irrelevant. I'm not the slightest bit interested in agape or faith. You're referencing religion and this is not a religious section of the forum. You need to discuss it with someone else. It's meaningless to me.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes. Of course.

Great to see that we agree compassion is a moral power in mankind.

Again, I agree.

Great to see that we agree that self-referencing and contemplating the cost is reflexive and causes compassion to decay.

I've no interest in 'asymmetry in psycholinguistics'.

The point is the asymmetry is there, and I'm pointing it out for everyone to see (everyone participating or reading the thread).

Not interested. Has nothing to do with free will.

In fact, it does. Free will is about morality. All asymmetry means here is the value of what is right is not the same devaluation that constitutes what is wrong. Right and wrong are not mirror images. Doing the right thing requires a realization toward an objective positive value; doing the wrong thing only requires deviation from it. That’s the asymmetry.

Making a choice doesn't prove free will.

Exactly. The story shows a neutral definition of free will in the moral/immoral context is not valid because morality and immorality are asymmetrical.

That choice is always available.

Not to people who are led by the truth. That's what the story shows. Surely, you're not agreeing that kidnapping other people's children is a valid option. It logically follows that those who trust in Agape or compassion or the love of others in some form of purity, it's a proposition that is disconnected from reality, a form of insanity.

Enough with this symetrical/asymetrical business. It's not relevant.

On the contrary, it's relevant to morality. For example, harming other people's children is not equal in value to rescuing children from someone who would harm them. <-- That's objective asymmetry. So regardless of whether or not it's relevant according to our subjective opinions about reality, objectively it's relevant to a community.

All completely irrelevant. I'm not the slightest bit interested in agape or faith.

Any reasoning based on something false ends in a contradiction. It's not about your or me. It's relevant to morality.

This statement of yours above appears contradictory to me because earlier you agreed that compassion is a moral power not an immoral power; and reflexive self-referencing causes compassion to decay. But we're not here to be interested in only our own self referencing self-interests, this forum must include others so that we care about what others think, not just ourselves.

You're referencing religion and this is not a religious section of the forum. You need to discuss it with someone else. It's meaningless to me.

Faith = trust in what is trustworthy = positive free will = freedom from self‑referencing

I am on record pointing out that the objective meaning of faith is trust in that which is trustworthy (referencing Agape/compassion). You might have counted it as woo, because you subjectively see faith only as subjective, while others @Mark Quayle and @Jerry N. did seem to understand the dictional objective logic of it.

So pardon my saying, but I think you might be conflating religion with trusting in unconditional Love/compassion for others. That also could partially explain any contradiction in your reasoning above. To be clear, I'm not personally interested one bit in religion..... So let's both try to stay on topic.

A major fMRI study directly compared compassion (other‑oriented) with pride (self‑focused). It found:

• Compassion activates the periaqueductal gray (PAG) — a caregiving, nurturance, and pain‑perception region.
• Self‑focus activates the posterior medial cortex — a core self‑referential processing hub.

A 2020 multi‑method neuroscience study found:

• Practicing compassion reduces activation in threat‑related neural networks.
• Self‑criticism (a form of self‑referencing) increases threat‑network activation.

This shows:

• Compassion → down‑regulates self‑referencing and threat
• Self‑referencing → up‑regulates threat and collapses compassion

Again, this is the objective structure.

The same study found:

• Compassion training increases heart‑rate variability (HRV) — a marker of parasympathetic calm and social openness.
• Self‑criticism reduces HRV, indicating defensive inward collapse.

A 2022 structural MRI study found:

• Compassionate responding and uncompassionate responding correlate with distinct neural substrates, especially in the medial prefrontal cortex and lateral prefrontal cortex.

This shows that:

• Compassion and self‑referencing are not two sides of one choice
• They are different systems with different neural correlates
• One decays the other

 

[Bradskii]

In fact, it does. Free will is about morality.

No. Free will impacts on morality. It's not about morality per se.

Doing the right thing requires a realization toward an objective positive value; doing the wrong thing only requires deviation from it. That’s the asymmetry.

You're saying that we choose to do something good because we think it's a 'positive'. And we do the wrong thing because we choose otherwise. We deviate from what we believe is the right thing to do. Well...yeah. Someone who robs an old lady knows it's wrong. They simply have desires at that moment which take preference. He chooses to rob her because at that moment it's something that he prefers to do.

This isn't actually adding anything at all to the discussion.

Not to people who are led by the truth. That's what the story shows. Surely, you're not agreeing that kidnapping other people's children is a valid option. It logically follows that those who trust in Agape or compassion or the love of others in some form of purity, it's a proposition that is disconnected from reality, a form of insanity.

You're completely wrong there. All choices are available. It's why they are called choices. It's a group of options that are available to you. And of course kidnapping children is an option if your desire is to extort a ransom from someone. It's certainly a 'valid' option if that is what you want to do. Do we consider them to be bad people? Well, duh...yes.

People decide to do what we consider to be good. And some do what we consider to be bad. Why bother even saying it? Again, this isn't adding anything at all to the discussion.

On the contrary, it's relevant to morality. For example, harming other people's children is not equal in value to rescuing children from someone who would harm them. <-- That's objective asymmetry. So regardless of whether or not it's relevant according to our subjective opinions about reality, objectively it's relevant to a community.

Don't complicate things, for heaven's sake. Enough with the symmetry. There's what we individually consider to be good decisions and some that we each think are bad ones. End of story.

Any reasoning based on something false ends in a contradiction. It's not about your or me. It's relevant to morality.

Whether something is actually true or not is irrelevant to making decisions. Whether we believe something is true or not is relevant to morality.

This statement of yours above appears contradictory to me because earlier you agreed that compassion is a moral power not an immoral power; and reflexive self-referencing causes compassion to decay. But we're not here to be interested in only our own self referencing self-interests, this forum must include others so that we care about what others think, not just ourselves.

Yeah, compassion is a determinant. It informs the decision making process. Some times your self interest will override it. I feel compassion for the old lady but I really want that money she's carrying. Again, this adds nothing.

Faith = trust in what is trustworthy = positive free will = freedom from self‑referencing

Whatever this is meant to be, it has no relevance. Neither does what follows it.

 

[childeye 2]

No. Free will impacts on morality. It's not about morality per se.

The Stanford Encyclopedia treats free will as the control condition for moral responsibility, so the moral dimension is part of the standard philosophical treatment.

You're saying that we choose to do something good because we think it's a 'positive'.

I didn't say choose I said, "Doing the right thing requires a realization toward an objective positive value...." Objective here means any person of sound mind can see the positive moral value and must move towards it, to do the right thing.

And we do the wrong thing because we choose otherwise.

I didn't say choose otherwise, I said "doing the wrong thing only requires deviation from it." <- It is the objective truth value.

We deviate from what we believe is the right thing to do.

This isn't about belief as in 'opinion'. Objectively Compassion carries a positive moral charge.

compassion​

noun​

sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

Well...yeah. Someone who robs an old lady knows it's wrong. They simply have desires at that moment which take preference. He chooses to rob her because at that moment it's something that he prefers to do.

This is not what I am talking about. Do you see suffering and compassion in this scenario? I sure don't.

This isn't actually adding anything at all to the discussion.

Since you're misrepresenting what I say, the conclusion that it adds nothing to the conversation is based on false information.

You're completely wrong there. All choices are available. It's why they are called choices. It's a group of options that are available to you.

You need to rethink this. Stealing children from their homes or robbing old ladies requires a desire to do so.

This is why when you say, -> "All choices are available. It's why they are called choices. It's a group of options that are available to you" I can tell that you don't yet realize how the implication that we can choose to desire to steal children or rob old ladies is actually silly, as if someone could choose such a desire and it would suddenly manifest in the heart. In this instance you have become the same person in the story, who said he could have chosen to steal other people's children and keep them as his slaves.

And of course kidnapping children is an option if your desire is to extort a ransom from someone. It's certainly a 'valid' option if that is what you want to do. Do we consider them to be bad people? Well, duh...yes.

See this is what I mean by asymmetry. A person who wants to do wrong is already wrong by definition. It's only a valid option to steal other people's children because they're already wrong to begin with. Like I said, any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction.

People decide to do what we consider to be good. And some do what we consider to be bad. Why bother even saying it? Again, this isn't adding anything at all to the discussion.

Again, I'm not saying that.

Don't complicate things, for heaven's sake. Enough with the symmetry. There's what we individually consider to be good decisions and some that we each think are bad ones. End of story.

Clarity is not complicating things.

Morality/immorality is not symmetrical, morality carries a positive charge in meaning and immorality carries a negative charge. You just want to collapse them both into a neutral position. -> In pragmatics, there’s a well‑known constraint: we can’t reason symmetrically inside a dichotomy that is defined by its asymmetry. Truth and falsehood form that kind of asymmetry; truth is a presence, and a lie is a deviation of it. If we try to treat them as interchangeable, we collapse the objective meaning of the distinction.

Whether something is actually true or not is irrelevant to making decisions.

Not true. People learn to not touch a hot stove.

Whether we believe something is true or not is relevant to morality.

We reason upon what we believe to be true and trustworthy. The man who steals the little girl for his slave believes something untrue.

Yeah, compassion is a determinant. It informs the decision making process.

Ha ha, yes. Seeing suffering is information, but just so we're clear compassion is spontaneous. The studies show that there is a reflexive response that self-references the cost. That is the definition of a determinant.

Some times your self interest will override it. I feel compassion for the old lady but I really want that money she's carrying. Again, this adds nothing.

It adds nothing because you collapse the meaning of compassion and the meaning of stealing into one word -> 'choices' as if they are the same thing, and when you do this, you collapse the asymmetry. <-- This is you criticizing yourself for adding nothing. I'm the one saying there is asymmetry.

Whatever this is meant to be, it has no relevance. Neither does what follows it.

It's relevant to compassion and free will. The studies were provided in support of what I am contributing to the thread as being factual.

 

[Bradskii]

The Stanford Encyclopedia treats free will as the control condition for moral responsibility, so the moral dimension is part of the standard philosophical treatment.

I didn't say choose I said, "Doing the right thing requires a realization toward an objective positive value...." Objective here means any person of sound mind can see the positive moral value and must move towards it, to do the right thing.

I didn't say choose otherwise, I said "doing the wrong thing only requires deviation from it." <- It is the objective truth value.

This isn't about belief as in 'opinion'. Objectively Compassion carries a positive moral charge.

compassion​

noun​

sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

This is not what I am talking about. Do you see suffering and compassion in this scenario? I sure don't.

Since you're misrepresenting what I say, the conclusion that it adds nothing to the conversation is based on false information.

You need to rethink this. Stealing children from their homes or robbing old ladies requires a desire to do so.

This is why when you say, -> "All choices are available. It's why they are called choices. It's a group of options that are available to you" I can tell that you don't yet realize how the implication that we can choose to desire to steal children or rob old ladies is actually silly, as if someone could choose such a desire and it would suddenly manifest in the heart. In this instance you have become the same person in the story, who said he could have chosen to steal other people's children and keep them as his slaves.

See this is what I mean by asymmetry. A person who wants to do wrong is already wrong by definition. It's only a valid option to steal other people's children because they're already wrong to begin with. Like I said, any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction.

Again, I'm not saying that.

Clarity is not complicating things.

Morality/immorality is not symmetrical, morality carries a positive charge in meaning and immorality carries a negative charge. You just want to collapse them both into a neutral position. -> In pragmatics, there’s a well‑known constraint: we can’t reason symmetrically inside a dichotomy that is defined by its asymmetry. Truth and falsehood form that kind of asymmetry; truth is a presence, and a lie is a deviation of it. If we try to treat them as interchangeable, we collapse the objective meaning of the distinction.

Not true. People learn to not touch a hot stove.

We reason upon what we believe to be true and trustworthy. The man who steals the little girl for his slave believes something untrue.

Ha ha, yes. Seeing suffering is information, but just so we're clear compassion is spontaneous. The studies show that there is a reflexive response that self-references the cost. That is the definition of a determinant.

It adds nothing because you collapse the meaning of compassion and the meaning of stealing into one word -> 'choices' as if they are the same thing, and when you do this, you collapse the asymmetry. <-- This is you criticizing yourself for adding nothing. I'm the one saying there is asymmetry.

It's relevant to compassion and free will. The studies were provided in support of what I am contributing to the thread as being factual.

I'm averse to this point by interminable point type of discussion, so I'll keep this short. I think you consider concepts like good and bad, compassion and indifference to be objective facts about the world. They aren't. They are relative to the individual. When making decisions, people interpret the facts as they see them.

And I shan't be responding to any statement you make about symmetry. It has nothing to do with the op.

 

[childeye 2]

And I shan't be responding to any statement you make about symmetry. It has nothing to do with the op.

We’re in the Ethics & Morality sub‑forum, so the definition of free will can’t avoid the moral/immoral dimension. The op does not contain any reference to ethics or morality. I'm sorry if you find my comments about that perturbing, but I am stating objective fact.

Your OP defines free will as “the ability to make decisions,” which treats all options as equally available. That’s a symmetric definition.

But in a moral context, that creates a contradiction you haven’t addressed: if all options are equally available, then the desire to do wrong must also be equally available, which would imply we can choose to desire things like kidnapping or cruelty.

That’s the issue I’ve been raising. It’s not a side topic; it’s a structural problem built into the definition once morality enters the discussion.

That’s a false premise, and I can’t reason from it.

My point about asymmetry is just the observation that moral and immoral actions don’t stand on equal footing. Morality has a positive value; immorality is a deviation from it. Treating them as interchangeable collapses the distinction we’re supposed to be discussing.

 

[Bradskii]

We’re in the Ethics & Morality sub‑forum, so the definition of free will can’t avoid the moral/immoral dimension.

The definition certainly avoided morality because you can't have a discussion as to whether free will exists or not by referring to morality. Morality is a discussion you can have once the matter has been settled.

But in a moral context, that creates a contradiction you haven’t addressed: if all options are equally available, then the desire to do wrong must also be equally available, which would imply we can choose to desire things like kidnapping or cruelty.

Of course someone could choose kidnapping or cruelty! People are kidnapped. People decide to be cruel. Luckily most people decide not to do either. They're equally available but that doesn't mean there's an equal chance of them being chosen. What on earth is your point?

 

[childeye 2]

The definition certainly avoided morality because you can't have a discussion as to whether free will exists or not by referring to morality. Morality is a discussion you can have once the matter has been settled.

Of course someone could choose kidnapping or cruelty! People are kidnapped. People decide to be cruel. Luckily most people decide not to do either. They're equally available but that doesn't mean there's an equal chance of them being chosen. What on earth is your point?

My point is the op, and your reasoning above presents a contradiction. -> “Luckily” only makes sense if kidnapping and cruelty are immoral and not neutral.

1. Your Formal Stance: Free will is a neutral mechanism where options are "equally available" (Symmetry).
2. Your Informal Language: It is "lucky" that people choose one over the other (Asymmetry).

Consider this question -> "Can we define 'Cruelty' without referencing a violation of 'Care/Agape'?"

If we can't, then Cruelty is a Derivative (-1).
If you try to define them as equal options, then where is the word for the "neutral" state between them?

Psychological studies on the "illusion" of neutral free will find that belief in it correlates with responsible behavior. Note that the researchers don't say it leads to 'neutral' behavior. By using the word 'responsible,' they are acknowledging that the will is not a lateral switch, but a mechanism that only functions with integrity when leaning toward Agape (+1). Moreover, the problem with leaning toward agape in the context of free will is it doesn't indicate that caring is a mover not an option.

A 'neutral' free will is indeed an illusion. Positive Free Will-> the faith/trust in the structural truth of caring about others, is the only version that produces measurable reality."

Summary of the Asymmetry

State	Biological Signal	Logical Value	Result
Agape	Oxytocin	+1 (Signal)	Trust, Growth, and Shared Reality
Fear	Cortisol	0 (Noise)	Survival, Isolation, and Alarm
Cruelty	HPA Dysregulation	-1 (Distortion)	Self-Terminating Chaos and Decay

We can't have it both ways. If neutral choice/option is an illusion in morality/immorality, then the 'Positive Primitive' that keeps society from collapsing is a structural law of the universe. If it's a structural law, it’s not 'woo', it’s the objective math of our existence. Which one is it?"

 

[Bradskii]

My point is the op, and your reasoning above presents a contradiction. -> “Luckily” only makes sense if kidnapping and cruelty are immoral and not neutral.

Hands up if anyone thinks that kidnapping and cruelty are not immoral. No-one? Yeah, me too. So I guess 'luckily really does make sense.

And I've said I'm not the slightest bit interested in discussing what you term symmetry.

 

[childeye 2]

Hands up if anyone thinks that kidnapping and cruelty are not immoral. No-one? Yeah, me too. So I guess 'luckily really does make sense.

We agree on this.
childeye 2 said:
Clarity is not complicating things.

Morality/immorality is not symmetrical, morality carries a positive charge in meaning and immorality carries a negative charge. You just want to collapse them both into a neutral position. -> In pragmatics, there’s a well‑known constraint: we can’t reason symmetrically inside a dichotomy that is defined by its asymmetry. Truth and falsehood form that kind of asymmetry; truth is a presence, and a lie is a deviation of it. If we try to treat them as interchangeable, we collapse the objective meaning of the distinction.

 

[Bradskii]

Morality/immorality is not symmetrical, morality carries a positive charge in meaning and immorality carries a negative charge. You just want to collapse them both into a neutral position. -> In pragmatics, there’s a well‑known constraint: we can’t reason symmetrically inside a dichotomy that is defined by its asymmetry. Truth and falsehood form that kind of asymmetry; truth is a presence, and a lie is a deviation of it. If we try to treat them as interchangeable, we collapse the objective meaning of the distinction.

You need to direct these posts to someone else. I have told you already that I have absolutely no nterest in what you are discussing.

 

[CIA Agent #1029]

You asked about decision making.

It's not deterministic.

Your idea of rerunning everything is impossible. Time only goes forward, and if you want to disprove me, then make it go backwards.

The closest to what you want is this: running similar trials that should lead to similar outcomes. But it fails here.

People who grew up in similar environments should become close clones of each other. But that's not the case; people who live in the same household, born as the same sex, with similar abilities, similar life trajectories, undergoing similar trials, living close together... can choose polar opposite decisions. You frequently see this in families: half fiercely republican, half fiercely democratic households, or brothers of which one is fiercely religious, and the other is fiercely atheist. Your deterministic theory fails here.

Then you have the phenomenon where people can take decisions that seem to have no root. A careful person will take a big gamble without reason, spontaneously. A greedy person will spend money lavishly once, for no reason. Etc. Shouldn't they stay careful or greedy? And if they contradict their personality, there should be a cause. But when you ask, they tell you they don't know, they just felt like it. And they get weirded out themselves; it's unlike them. There just isn't a reason, it's a spontaneous decision.

Then you have prophetic dreams. Some people dream that they will do something, and in turn, something happens. Then it really does happen like in the dream. It can be something you would never have thought of doing, like leaving your good home for a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]hole. Where the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] do those come from?

Then you have revelations. Sometimes, for no reason, people gain a sudden stream of information, or realize something shocking. Then your whole decision making changes; instead of thinking about work and spreadsheets, you start thinking about life and death, for example. Again, where do they come from?

They affect your decision making significantly.

All of these points invalidate your deterministic theory.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm done arguing about it, ya'll have fun ok.

Take Care/God Bless.

P.S. I still think the reason for some if not most people (or a lot of a lot of people actually) rejecting the idea of determinism as an obvious truth is just because they can't accept it due to an inner rebellion that is also deterministic in their case, etc. So there's no point or sense in me trying to "kick against the goads", and that's why I'm going to quit arguing about it, etc.

But I'd also just like to ask you what God maybe thinks about that inner rebellion being the only reason, if it is, etc, and what you think he might think about it though? In my opinion it really is just you insisting on your own way, and not wanting to confront or accept/tackle difficult truths probably because of some other things besides this that was just mentioned that are in you right now currently, that is currently still wrong with you, etc.

Anyway, ya'll have fun.

I'm done arguing endlessly with rebellious toddlers throwing fits cause they don't want to see the truth, etc. And this is going to be beginning to other things I have been arguing as well, so you might not see me on here very much any longer for awhile. If you didn't get it when I already said it the first thousand times, then, "good luck!", I guess, see you at the judgement, etc. (And then you'll find out I was right and had the truth all along, etc) (and was one of the only one's who did, all along, etc).

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

You asked about decision making.

It's not deterministic.

Then can we agree that if nothing determined any given decision, if there was no cause, then it was arbitrary?

Your idea of rerunning everything is impossible.

It's a hypothetical. Not an actual experiment. Like a brain in a vat or creating an exact copy of yourself. It's a thought experiment. Many people in this forum can't seem to grasp the concept. I think you just joined the club.

The closest to what you want is this: running similar trials that should lead to similar outcomes. But it fails here.

It would fail. Because It's not 'the closest' to what I want. It's utterly different. In the thought experiment, everything is either exactly the same...or it isn't. If something is subtly different (as it would be in a 'similar trial') then you've introduced variables that could change the result. Which is an important point you've made And one which you need to consider. A tiny variable can cause a different result. It might cause you to change your mind about something. Or, putting it another way, the change determined your choice.

People who grew up in similar environments should become close clones of each other. But that's not the case; people who live in the same household, born as the same sex, with similar abilities, similar life trajectories, undergoing similar trials, living close together... can choose polar opposite decisions. You frequently see this in families: half fiercely republican, half fiercely democratic households, or brothers of which one is fiercely religious, and the other is fiercely atheist.

What you then have to explain is what reason was there that caused the person to become a Democrat, or an atheist. People don't randomly become Democrats (or atheists) for no reason. So what do you think determined their decision? Can you offer some suggestions?

Then you have the phenomenon where people can take decisions that seem to have no root. A careful person will take a big gamble without reason, spontaneously. A greedy person will spend money lavishly once, for no reason. Etc. Shouldn't they stay careful or greedy? And if they contradict their personality, there should be a cause. But when you ask, they tell you they don't know, they just felt like it. And they get weirded out themselves; it's unlike them. There just isn't a reason, it's a spontaneous decision.

Then it's truly arbitrary. Like spinning a coin. As I've said, free will isn't involved with random decisions. That's the very opposite of free will.

Then you have prophetic dreams. Then you have revelations. Sometimes, for no reason, people gain a sudden stream of information, or realize something shocking. Then your whole decision making changes; instead of thinking about work and spreadsheets, you start thinking about life and death, for example. Again, where do they come from?

But you said that decision making wasn't deterministic. Now you're saying that a revelation or a dream determines your choices.

They affect your decision making significantly.

I completely agree. They become part of what is described in the thread as antecedent conditions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

CIA Agent #1029 said:
Then you have the phenomenon where people can take decisions that seem to have no root. A careful person will take a big gamble without reason, spontaneously. A greedy person will spend money lavishly once, for no reason. Etc. Shouldn't they stay careful or greedy? And if they contradict their personality, there should be a cause. But when you ask, they tell you they don't know, they just felt like it. And they get weirded out themselves; it's unlike them. There just isn't a reason, it's a spontaneous decision.

Then it's truly arbitrary. Like spinning a coin. As I've said, free will isn't involved with random decisions. That's the very opposite of free will.

Agreed, there is no cause in natural spontaneity. To what do they attribute the decision, then? How did it go one way, and not the other?

It is a self-destructive argument, drawn on mere assertion. That they SEEM to have no root is irrelevant. "Without reason" and "Spontaneously" are, like "Chance" and "Random" logically impossible as reasons for anything—they are only shortcuts for what @CIA Agent #1029 said concerning the people that such sometimes happens with, THEY DON'T KNOW. That's all it is. They don't know. Even his comment tells on him, and repeats what we've asserted these 4600-post 231-page thread's couple of years—they did it because "they felt like it".

It's even worse! It asserts constancy of personality and purpose and not the ambivalence of desire that they claim is endemic to spontaneity, if such a person is able of himself to produce anything uncaused. Such can be attributed to First Cause alone, and there can be only one first cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

An interesting side-pull to this subject, has been suggested to me. My daughter and I were watching the series, "Fringe", and talking about the astronomical improbability that two different universes could after years upon years of cause-and-effect come up with the same people with the same names in the same towns, with only similar jobs and abilities, and not all people were still alive on both sides, (or dead on both). For example, supposing these two universes to have existed for milennia, what are the chances that there would even be a USA, nevermind a CIA, and that the people working together there on their team (of different names) would be producing the same children etc etc. It's ludicrous.

But my daughter said that it may be they are operating off some notion that some things are ends of fate (my language, here, not hers) in themselves, and all other fact arranges about those. I suppose that is like small pockets of determinism springing backwards from nodes of fact to produce antecedent conditions. I think the notion is stupid, but it is a fun thought. Almost as fun as saying there are no chains of cause-and-effect, but only the gods watching for what we expect and causing it to come to pass as we go. Or like the notion that God watches the future to see what we will do, then predestines that to happen. Or like God flying by the seat of his pants— by his immense intelligence and power turning all the bad things that freewill causes to good purposes.

 

[Bradskii]

...talking about the astronomical improbability that two different universes could after years upon years of cause-and-effect come up with the same people with the same names in the same towns, with only similar jobs and abilities, and not all people were still alive on both sides, (or dead on both). For example, supposing these two universes to have existed for milennia, what are the chances that there would even be a USA, nevermind a CIA, and that the people working together there on their team (of different names) would be producing the same children etc etc. It's ludicrous.

I remember when I was a kid reading somewhere about the possibility of an infinite universe. And the argument against the possibilty was that in an infinite universe anthing that is possible must be actual. An infinite number of times.