"Free will was given to man by god."

[Immanuel Can]

Our common sense reason puts causes and effects together so we can have some idea of what will happen as a result of our doing this or that.

To say that causes and effects work together in our world is to beg the question of whether or not the volition or will of a human being is, itself, a cause of physical actions. If it is, then there is no inconsistency at all in believing cause and effect works generally, but that any complete conception of "cause" must necessarily also include human causes, volitional causes, choices and decisions.

Which I note, you also believe to be the case, despite all protestations to the contrary. For you are protesting, and protesting takes for granted the volitional ability of those to whom you protest your case.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

-----"only biological machinery, goin' through the motions."

Biological systems, bodies, are not despicable. Our bodies, our biological systems, are made by God according to deists. Reason, according to deists, is also made by God. Our common sense reason puts causes and effects together so we can have some idea of what will happen as a result of our doing this or that.

As a composite being, both spirit and flesh together (or, information and matter), I don't find my body despicable. I object only to the determinist/materialist idea that matter is all I am.

As a deist, I'm not obligated to deny myself as free will. The two, free will and Prime Mover seem part & parcel.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't find my body despicable.

When I find my body despicable, it's time to hit the gym.

[henry quirk]

I don't find my body despicable.

When I find my body despicable, it's time to hit the gym.

Me, I just keep my body image flexible.

[Nick_A]

Henry Quirk wrote:

-----"only biological machinery, goin' through the motions."

Biological systems, bodies, are not despicable. Our bodies, our biological systems, are made by God according to deists. Reason, according to deists, is also made by God. Our common sense reason puts causes and effects together so we can have some idea of what will happen as a result of our doing this or that.

As a composite being, both spirit and flesh together (or, information and matter), I don't find my body despicable. I object only to the determinist/materialist idea that matter is all I am.

As a deist, I'm not obligated to deny myself as free will. The two, free will and Prime Mover seem part & parcel.

You've inspired me to begin a thread on "Renewing he Mind." Please read it and tell me if you can see how the body can be a living sacrifice serving a conscious purpose without the body being perverted into being labeled as despicable and inspiring the usual nastiness.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

-----"only biological machinery, goin' through the motions."

Biological systems, bodies, are not despicable. Our bodies, our biological systems, are made by God according to deists. Reason, according to deists, is also made by God. Our common sense reason puts causes and effects together so we can have some idea of what will happen as a result of our doing this or that.

As a composite being, both spirit and flesh together (or, information and matter), I don't find my body despicable. I object only to the determinist/materialist idea that matter is all I am.

As a deist, I'm not obligated to deny myself as free will. The two, free will and Prime Mover seem part & parcel.

You've inspired me to begin a thread on "Renewing he Mind." Please read it and tell me if you can see how the body can be a living sacrifice serving a conscious purpose without the body being perverted into being labeled as despicable and inspiring the usual nastiness.

I'll take a gander.

[Belinda]

Our common sense reason puts causes and effects together so we can have some idea of what will happen as a result of our doing this or that.

To say that causes and effects work together in our world is to beg the question of whether or not the volition or will of a human being is, itself, a cause of physical actions. If it is, then there is no inconsistency at all in believing cause and effect works generally, but that any complete conception of "cause" must necessarily also include human causes, volitional causes, choices and decisions.

Which I note, you also believe to be the case, despite all protestations to the contrary. For you are protesting, and protesting takes for granted the volitional ability of those to whom you protest your case.

'My volition' is the same as 'my willingness'. My willingness is caused by so many causes that it would be hard to name the main causes. The two groups of main causes that bear on morality are nature, and nurture. By nature I refer to genetic inheritance, and by nurture | refer to what I have learned in the course of my life.

Some individuals have scant opportunity to learn very much because they die as infants, or they are such slow learners they never really learn much, or because their lives are circumscribed by lack of opportunities. These individuals have as much freedom to will this or that as their comparatively undeveloped brain-minds are capable of. Sometimes an individual is born with no brain-mind at all and can will nothing as long as she lives: no volition: no willingness.

Certainly the will. or volition, of a living entire human being with an anatomical brain-mind is frequently and more or less a plexus of causes and effects . I think a Free Will believer would claim at this juncture that Free Will is the super-cause that sorts out which option will be the chosen one, that one that the subject wills.

Setting aside the argument that willing something follows after the course of action, it is quite easy to understand how Free Will belief is a common sense belief.

I was trained by my life experiences especially my teachers to be sceptical. My scepticism is founded upon scrapping unnecessary hypotheses. The Free Will hypothesis is unnecessary for me because what I consciously choose from the plexus of possibilities of which I am aware is entirely ruled by my nature and my nurture.

I repeat, some individuals have very small and uncomplicated plexuses of possibilities while other have larger plexuses. It is generally thought that individuals with larger plexuses of possibilities are more free of constraints but this is disputable. A field mouse, it has been noted , in important respects is blessed compared with a man .

[Sculptor]

You are relying on expert witnesses, that you do not understand, nor do you realise that their views have long been superseded by science.

You are so funny sometimes.

Neuroscience is neuroscience.
You can bang on about creationism as much as you like but the facts are out there.
You can offer a geocentric hypothesis like most of your kind but the fact is that we go round the sun.
And the facts are out there for neuroscience. Your dualism has nothing to recommend it. Free will is a theory that does no work.
You offer Plato.
I offer science.
Take your pick!

[Sculptor]

If I were "free" - what ever that's supposed to mean, what I say could just as well be shit pulled out of the air.

Go back to every post I have ever made about volition and you will see I never use the phrase, "free will," or ever describe it as, "free." Volition only means everything a human being does, as a human being, must be consciously chosen.

Which is wholly deterministic.
Consciousness is driven by the antecedent qualities of the brain.
This is inescapable.

[Immanuel Can]

What's interesting to me is that you 'take a knee' to free will many times, even while trying to campaign for Determinism. I've colour coded your comments to illustrate...red for "requires Determinism" and green for "necessarily presumes free will."

'My volition' is the same as 'my willingness'. My willingness is caused by so many causes that it would be hard to name the main causes. The two groups of main causes that bear on morality are nature, and nurture. By nature I refer to genetic inheritance, and by nurture | refer to what I have learned in the course of my life.

Some individuals have scant opportunity to learn very much because they die as infants, or they are such slow learners they never really learn much, or because their lives are circumscribed by lack of opportunities. These individuals have as much freedom to will this or that as their comparatively undeveloped brain-minds are capable of. Sometimes an individual is born with no brain-mind at all and can will nothing as long as she lives: no volition: no willingness.

Certainly the will. or volition, of a living entire human being with an anatomical brain-mind is frequently and more or less a plexus of causes and effects . I think a Free Will believer would claim at this juncture that Free Will is the super-cause that sorts out which option will be the chosen one, that one that the subject wills.

Setting aside the argument that willing something follows after the course of action, it is quite easy to understand how Free Will belief is a common sense belief.

I was trained by my life experiences especially my teachers to be sceptical. My scepticism is founded upon scrapping unnecessary hypotheses. The Free Will hypothesis is unnecessary for me because what I consciously choose from the plexus of possibilities of which I am aware is entirely ruled by my nature and my nurture.

I repeat, some individuals have very small and uncomplicated plexuses of possibilities while other have larger plexuses. It is generally thought that individuals with larger plexuses of possibilities are more free of constraints but this is disputable. A field mouse, it has been noted , in important respects is blessed compared with a man .

You see? There's far more green than red. And here are some reasons.

If "learning" or "nurture" are responsible for anything, then they must be enacted on a volitional agent. If not, they are neither "learning" nor "nurturing," but merely "programming," like one programs a computer. Except that with a computer, there is at least a prior intelligent cause, say Bill Gates; but with the kind of programming Determinism requires, no prior intelligent "programmer" exists at all -- unintelligent matter is "programming" unintelligent matter...and that just looks like a 'magical' claim, in the worst sense of that word.

Now, when you get to talking about things like "plexuses of possibilities," you even combine both the idea of Determinism (plexus) with the idea of free will (possibilities: because in Determinism, there are no possibilities but what is caused to happen by the prior cause -- no other possibility ever exists ).

Honestly? I think the bottom line is that you don't really understand Determinism yet. You're still thinking it can allow free will to exist...but if it does, then by very definition, it's no longer Determinism.

[Belinda]

Now, when you get to talking about things like "plexuses of possibilities," you even combine both the idea of Determinism (plexus) with the idea of free will (possibilities: because in Determinism, there are no possibilities but what is caused to happen by the prior cause -- no other possibility ever exists ).

There are possibilities in the case of causal determinism. This is because nobody can know the future. People cannot even reliably predict the weather. Because determinism does not include or imply predictability the choices of a human being who has actual choices depend upon how he chooses. I cannot see that the Free Will cause is particularly wise as Free Will is itself uncaused and is therefore random.

What is the difference between a Free Will event and a guess at a Roulette wheel event?

[Immanuel Can]

There are possibilities in the case of causal determinism.

By definition, no, there are none.

This is because nobody can know the future.

You're making a mistake. What people know says nothing necessary about what is the case. I may not know there's a tiger outside my door; but if there is, I will be eaten if I go outside, nonetheless.

What you are really saying is this: that there are no "possibilities," no "other ways things could have been," and no authentic choices -- but human beings, you must suppose, foolish and blind as we are, have an inexplicable inability to see this. So we have delusions of possibility, where there are actually none.

Free Will is itself uncaused and is therefore random.

Sorry: that's just a false dichotomy. The opposite of Deterministic is not "random." Randomness implies the absolute absence of any conditions contributing to the outcome; and no sensible person who believes in free will thinks that's an adequate description of what they're speaking about.

If human volition IS itself a cause of actions, our choices are not "random." Rather, they are calculated within the constraints of the possible, which are actually more elastic than you have imagined, but are not infinitely so -- randomness would require infinite absence of constraint or conditions. But choices take place within a set of givens.

What is the difference between a Free Will event and a guess at a Roulette wheel event?

Roulette wheels could be random (arguably, because Determinism has to deny that anything at all is really random). But we do not say that your choice to respond to this email was random. We also don't say it was inevitable. It was a choice you made; and you were free not to respond. Both were possible to you. You had two options, two possibilities. You enacted one. Nobody made you do it.

At the same time, you were not devoid of constraint or conditions. That's why you could not just suddenly decide to communicate to me by telepathy instead of this forum. Likewise, you could not instantly decide to become a unicorn, or surf the Milky Way. You were a particular person, at a particular time and place, with a particular set of options. Nothing in this implies randomness. Neither does it imply Determinism.

And my speaking to you know testifies to my belief that you are not merely playing out the inevitable. I'm treating you like you had a choice, had will, and had individuality. If I thought you were merely a cause-effect complex, there would be no reason to bother. You couldn't be convinced of anything but what was inevitable for you.

[RCSaunders]

If I were "free" - what ever that's supposed to mean, what I say could just as well be shit pulled out of the air.

Go back to every post I have ever made about volition and you will see I never use the phrase, "free will," or ever describe it as, "free." Volition only means everything a human being does, as a human being, must be consciously chosen.

Which is wholly deterministic.
Consciousness is driven by the antecedent qualities of the brain.
This is inescapable.

I'm sorry, I just cannot subscribe to the superstitious view that there can be no natural thing that cannot be described in terms of physical properties alone. The physical is all that I can be conscious of, all that I can directly perceive (see, hear, feel, smell, and taste), and all of that is what the physical sciences study, and all of that is determined by the principles those sciences discover. What the sciences cannot study is anything that does not have physical properties that can be perceived.

Consciousness does not have any physical properties. I cannot see it, hear it, feel it, smell it, or taste it. It does not have any color, size, mass, or any chemical or electrical properties. It cannot be perceived at all. Except for one's own consciousness, there is no way at all for anyone to know or examine anything else's consciousness (assuming animals can also see, hear, feel, etc.). The only way I know I am conscious is because I am. I cannot, for example, see, hear, feel, smell, or taste my, "seeing," but I know I see. I cannot know it by perceiving it (the way I could if it were a physical thing) but because I do see.

To deny that I consciously see I would have to lie to myself. It is obvious to me that there are in the natural world attributes for which physical properties alone cannot account. One of those attributes is consciousness. Another is life. Neither life or consciousness can be accounted for strictly in terms of physical properties (though neither is possible except to physical organisms).

I regard the denial of life and consciousness as real properties of the natural world which cannot be described in physical terms a kind of superstition, based primarily on a fear of mysticism or supernaturalism. Life and consciousness are not supernatural attributes, they are perfectly natural attributes of material existence in addition to all the physical attributes. Since they are not physical, however, they cannot be studied or examined or explained in terms of the physical sciences.

I'm not trying to convince you, Sculptor, because I'm sure that would not be possible. I think you have been thoroughly indoctrinated in irrational physicalist ideology which physicalists embrace with the same ferocity the religious embrace theirs.

[Sculptor]

Go back to every post I have ever made about volition and you will see I never use the phrase, "free will," or ever describe it as, "free." Volition only means everything a human being does, as a human being, must be consciously chosen.

Which is wholly deterministic.
Consciousness is driven by the antecedent qualities of the brain.
This is inescapable.

I'm sorry, I just cannot subscribe to the superstitious view that there can be no natural thing that cannot be described in terms of physical properties alone.

You can hardly expect me to take me seriously, when you are the one with the peri-christian superstition.

I'm not trying to convince you, Sculptor, because I'm sure that would not be possible. I think you have been thoroughly indoctrinated in irrational physicalist ideology which physicalists embrace with the same ferocity the religious embrace theirs.

Ad hominems won't help you either.

We all make choices. The fact is that they are meaningless unless determined.
Ask yourself this question.

Imagine a parallel world in which everything was the same.

In each of those worlds there is a copy of you who has been asked to make a choice between coffee or tea.

Which applies.
1) you make the same choice in both worlds
2) you make a different choice in both worlds

If you answered 2, how was that achieved and what does it say about the value of any decision you care to make?

What can you learn about your answer?

[Immanuel Can]

You are relying on expert witnesses, that you do not understand, nor do you realise that their views have long been superseded by science.

You are so funny sometimes.

Neuroscience is neuroscience.
You can bang on about creationism as much as you like but the facts are out there.
You can offer a geocentric hypothesis like most of your kind but the fact is that we go round the sun.
And the facts are out there for neuroscience. Your dualism has nothing to recommend it. Free will is a theory that does no work.
You offer Plato.
I offer science.
Take your pick!

Attaboy! Go wild with the nuttiness. Try to commit me to being antiscientific, or geocentric, or Platonic...hey, try for the Inquisition or the Crusades, while you're at it.

I was wrong: you're not funny sometimes, you're funny all the time.

Go Sculpy go.