"Free will was given to man by god."

[RCSaunders]

... the burden of proof must be on the Determinist -- and ironically, if he succeeds in convincing us, contrary to our programming, he has thereby disproved his hypothesis himself! We changed a mind that could not actually be changed, you see.

Right. If a determinist is right, he never makes an argument, he is only doing what he was determined to do and all his arguments have no more meaning then a dead tree falling in the woods.

[Immanuel Can]

... the burden of proof must be on the Determinist -- and ironically, if he succeeds in convincing us, contrary to our programming, he has thereby disproved his hypothesis himself! We changed a mind that could not actually be changed, you see.

Right. If a determinist is right, he never makes an argument, he is only doing what he was determined to do and all his arguments have no more meaning then a dead tree falling in the woods.

Yep. Well said.

[Belinda]

... the burden of proof must be on the Determinist -- and ironically, if he succeeds in convincing us, contrary to our programming, he has thereby disproved his hypothesis himself! We changed a mind that could not actually be changed, you see.

Right. If a determinist is right, he never makes an argument, he is only doing what he was determined to do and all his arguments have no more meaning then a dead tree falling in the woods.

I am a determinist and I can argue for ethics that chime with determinism. I think I did so, probably a long time ago and you probably did not want to understand.

[gaffo]

maybe man has freewill - show me how/give examples! that is why we are here, to disscuss the issue!...i welcome discusson on the matter Sir.

Yes, okay.

I guess we could start with this: that every human being acts as if he/she has free will. And since there are so few beliefs that are truly universal, this, in itself, must be a startling fact. I suggest that this sets the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the Determinist, who needs to explain why we all believe -- and act like -- we have a thing we simply (according to Determinism) do not have. How did we all come to be so deluded?

There are other roads of approach, of course. How about the belief in ethics/morals? In a predetermined world, that phenomenon makes no sense whatsoever. Why should there be a thing called "morals" in a place in which (according to Determinism) there is no possibility of genuine deliberation on action, no possibility of someone doing anything other than exactly what he/she did in each case?

Or how about the phenomenon of debate? Why do we try to "change each others' minds" when it is utterly impossible (per Determinism) that we should ever think other than the thing we happen to be fated to think by the inexorable march of causal forces preceding our deliberations? Again, the burden of proof must be on the Determinist -- and ironically, if he succeeds in convincing us, contrary to our programming, he has thereby disproved his hypothesis himself! We changed a mind that could not actually be changed, you see.

So my starting point is this: why should we deny the reality of such phenomena, and re-interpret them, contrary to all our natural interpretations, as mere expressions of a Deterministic universe? I think the Determinist owes us a showing of that. And judging by everyone's actions, it would seem we all think that, too.

So stage 1: establishing the burden of proof. It's the Determinist's problem first.

thanks for the civil reply sir, this forum is ok...

You're quite welcome. As you say, I think civil debate is the best. I'm happy we've settled on that. Let's carry on in that spirit.

well spoken reply to me - thanks!

And since there are so few beliefs that are truly universal

i personally reject this premise. i ignore whatever God/Gods one believe in (i see a univeral view in all religions - "do/be good").

so i see nearly all of us in agreement in "be/do good" - and so GREAT! i concur with that simple mantra.

in otherwords i think nearly all of us "believe" in the same thing!

How about the belief in ethics/morals? In a predetermined world, that phenomenon makes no sense whatsoever.


Man is an animal, breed via evolution as a social animal to affirm morality!

so evolution as the determinate - mandated all men to value it!

we would not be otherwise, i.e. we - not having the backs of our tribe in time of peril, would just not care about morality, and so would have died out 2 million yrs ago!


Why should there be a thing called "morals" in a place in which (according to Determinism) there is no possibility of genuine deliberation on action

evolution.

no possibility of someone doing anything other than exactly what he/she did in each case?

evolution

when one steps out of bounds - he/she is a "bad robot" (via genes and/or upbringing). they act outside of morality and the collective behads them/jails then/etc.

they have either "Freewill/or bad genes/bad upbringing".


Or how about the phenomenon of debate? Why do we try to "change each others' minds" when it is utterly impossible (per Determinism) that we should ever think other than the thing we happen to be fated to think by the inexorable march of causal forces preceding our deliberations?

i think that is a strawman argument.

BTW i think you are right in your first sentence is correct, every man acts as if he has freewill (I do even though i do not think i do). It in the nature of man to act this way.


-----

thanks for reply, BTW not sure if you noted my posts concerning "freewill" (lol not sure why i did in this thread!) since the 2 yrs i've been here, but the subject bores me.

i do not care about the issue - i personally view it as irrelivant, and those that champion freewill as egostisical,

i'm ok with living my life via the illusion of freewill myself.

[RCSaunders]

I am a determinist and I can argue for ethics that chime with determinism. I think I did so, probably a long time ago and you probably did not want to understand.

I'm sure you did, but of course you had no choice in the matter.

Do I understand now?

[Immanuel Can]

in otherwords i think nearly all of us "believe" in the same thing!

Have you travelled much? In particular, have you ever travelled and lived outside of the developed West? Cuz I have.

If you have, I suspect you have a pretty hard time sustaining that view. I don't think you'll find it's true, but I do understand why it's attractive to people.

Man is an animal, breed via evolution as a social animal to affirm morality!

There are a lot of problems with that idea. One is that Darwin said that natural selection cannot "select" for anything that is not already acting as a survival advantage, but that the natural selection process has to be effectively "blind" to that thing.

Another thing, as I suggest above, is that what humans call "morality" differs hugely from place to place; and another, that many "moralities" clearly produce survival disadvantages.

But those are old and well-known critiques.

i think you are right in your first sentence is correct, every man acts as if he has freewill (I do even though i do not think i do). It in the nature of man to act this way.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that that puts the emphasis on the Determinist. He owes us to show us Determinism is true. If he can't, then why should we think it, since people are instinctively and universally disposed to act as if it exists.

And he owes us not merely to suggest how it "could be so," since things in a contingent universe "could be" many ways, but that it actually IS so. And how would he do that?

the subject bores me. i do not care about the issue - i personally view it as irrelivant,

Well, I guess conversation is always optional. I can talk with someone else about it, if you're bored.

As I say, no harm, no foul.

[gaffo]

in otherwords i think nearly all of us "believe" in the same thing!

Have you travelled much? In particular, have you ever travelled and lived outside of the developed West? Cuz I have.

I've travelled to Mexico, Canada, England, Scottland and Wales.

so if you include Mexico as part of the west, then no i've not travelled outside of the west.

If you have, I suspect you have a pretty hard time sustaining that view. I don't think you'll find it's true.

ok, i'm listening, why don't you think there is a general universal morality underneath cultural mores, which seem "immoral" to the West. (and vise versa WRT to Easterns view of Westerners).

Another thing, as I suggest above, is that what humans call "morality" differs hugely from place to place; and another, that many "moralities" clearly produce survival disadvantages.

I grant you there are "immoral" practices in other cultures, female circumscism, stoning, imolation of widows/etc. but i do not see the folks in those cultures as having morals different than me.

if they see a kid about to be hit be a car, they would run to save him, if they see a baby hanging from a window they will catch him, i doubt they would be ok with incest or rape or murder either.


When you get to a people with a moral compass so foriegn from another people - due to evolution say - then we are talking about two species of man - one man and the other not-man.

We as a species have been separated for 100,000 yrs, and some Causcasion as well as Asians have interbred with Neanderthal and Densovans - both of which have were "men' like us IMO, but separated by a common ancester via 800,000 yrs. I think they must have been similar enough to us in behavior to allow us to interbreed to a degree, which we did, from 60,000 yrs ago to 30,000 yrs ago (our DNA is on average 2-percent them) BTW Africans did the same with "old folks" in Camaroon and have similar influx of DNA from them (i see posts by Black Activists claiming Whiles are thugs for having Neanderthal DNA, while ignorant that they also have similar DNA from thier own "Neanderthals").

simply put i just don't see the ablility of any culture to be able to remove the morality similar to mine from any person living today or 100,000 yrs ago.

maybe that is just blind faith on my part, but if so so be it.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that that puts the emphasis on the Determinist. He owes us to show us Determinism is true. If he can't, then why should we think it, since people are instinctively and universally disposed to act as if it exists.

And he owes us not merely to suggest how it "could be so," since things in a contingent universe "could be" many ways, but that it actually IS so. And how would he do that?

i don't think you can prove nor disprove this empircaly.

the subject bores me. i do not care about the issue - i personally view it as irrelivant,

Well, I guess conversation is always optional. I can talk with someone else about it, if you're bored.

As I say, no harm, no foul.

lol, i did not mean to sound flippant, it really is a subject i have no interest in since i live my life as if i have freewill anyhow.

i welcome discussion nonetheless.

thanks for reply!

[henry quirk]

Late Lament
Graeme Edge

Breathe deep the gathering gloom
Watch lights fade from every room
Bedsitter people look back and lament
Another day's useless energy spent

Impassioned lovers wrestle as one
Lonely man cries for love and has none
New mother picks up and suckles her son
Senior citizens wish they were young

Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colours from our sight
Red is grey and yellow, white
But I decide which is right
And which is an illusion

[Immanuel Can]

ok, i'm listening, why don't you think there is a general universal morality underneath cultural mores, which seem "immoral" to the West. (and vise versa WRT to Easterns view of Westerners).

Well, you yourself write...

I grant you there are "immoral" practices in other cultures, female circumscism, stoning, imolation of widows/etc.

and then you write...

but i do not see the folks in those cultures as having morals different than me.

You're going to need to explain that to me. I'm having trouble seeing how you can say stoning is "immoral" if people don't have "different morals than" you.

i doubt they would be ok with incest or rape or murder either.

Oh, there are examples. In Pakistan, revenge-rape is considered a religious and just act. And in Saudi, they'll not just kill you, but toss you off a roof or boil you in oil if you're homosexual. And in Somalia, teenage women are held down by relatives and forcibly circumcised with knives or sharp glass, in order to guarantee their "purity." It's quite an approved practice; and failure to do it is heavily socially stigmatized.

But these examples must be familiar to you, I'm sure.

similar DNA.

Alas, DNA is not an element of morality. There's no genetic markers for right and wrong, or for the belief therein.

Too bad for us all that it's not that easy.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that that puts the emphasis on the Determinist. He owes us to show us Determinism is true. If he can't, then why should we think it, since people are instinctively and universally disposed to act as if it exists.

And he owes us not merely to suggest how it "could be so," since things in a contingent universe "could be" many ways, but that it actually IS so. And how would he do that?

i don't think you can prove nor disprove this empircaly.

But if so, the free-will proponent surely gets the win. Everybody already acts and believes that what the free-willian believes is true -- and though I have met many convinced Determinists, I have never met even one of them who lived like Determinism was true for him.

thanks for reply!

My pleasure.

[Immanuel Can]

Late Lament
Graeme Edge

Poetry? And Vonnegut.

Henry, you're tanking your reputation as an uncultured boor.

[Belinda]

But I decide which is right
And which is an illusion

True. It's a frightening responsibility. Better get as much state of the art knowledge as you can.

[Immanuel Can]

i do not care about the issue - i personally view it as irrelivant, and those that champion freewill as egostisical,

I confess I puzzled over this remark. That's why I did not at first reply to it: I couldn't think of exactly how it could be meant, or how I could appropriately respond to that statement.

For one thing, "egotism" is impossible, in a Deterministic world. It's not immoral there, and it's not something anyone chooses. For there, nobody genuinely chooses anything. Thus belief in free will could neither be bad nor be self-motivated...if Determinism were true.

I also had a hard time imagining how "egotism" could be a motive for saying that one genuinely thought the condition of the universe included free will. That seemed to me to be merely a factual position -- just as Determinism, were it true, would be merely a factual metaphysical claim -- rather than a self-motivated one. And I don't mean to suggest we rule arbitrarily in favour of free will, but only that the whole question does not seem to me obviously motivated by personal considerations.

But at length, I kind of guessed why you might think it was plausibly true. May I guess?

Maybe, if one thought that the free will position was unconditional -- that it had to refuse to acknowledge any role at all for things like heredity, environment, indoctrination, learning, and so on -- then one might come to imagine it was a petulant refusal to see the obvious: namely, that things like heredity, environment and education play some role in shaping the decisions of the individual self. And maybe that would look like mere egotism.

But if that's what you were thinking (and I don't say that it was, because I'm still not sure) then I would think it would be a needless worry and a less-than-accurate depiction of why people who believe in free will do so.

For one thing, I've never met a "free willian" (voluntarist, libertarian) who thought that free will meant that environment, culture, education and so on had NO role in shaping character. In fact, I've never met one that thought that these things had anything less than a BIG role in shaping our decisions.

But the differentiator is this: does human will play ANY role in shaping our decisions, however small, or are all our apparent decisions NOTHING BUT the accumulation of our culture, education, learning, environment, and so on.

And put that way, I don't see how advocating for free will can possibly be arrogant or egotistical. It seems to me that a) it's only intended as a factual metaphysical hypothesis, and b) it does not refuse to acknowledge that a significant role in shaping decisions has to be according to forces outside the self. Rather, it recognizes those things, and incorporates them into its theory.

Have I misunderstood your point? Perhaps.

[henry quirk]

I'm a renaissance primitive.

[henry quirk]

Nope. Just body, brain and soul: one neat lil package designed to tackle EVERYTHING.

[Belinda]

I am a determinist and I can argue for ethics that chime with determinism. I think I did so, probably a long time ago and you probably did not want to understand.

I'm sure you did, but of course you had no choice in the matter.

Do I understand now?

Then you did not understand that we all choose, choosing is an activity that all animals that can learn , do. If you know the causes of something then you are likely to make better choice pari passu.

For instance if you know the causes of crimes you are more likely to discover a way to stop crimes.