Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[Age]

The Free Will stance does affect behaviour as follows.

Free Will theory says that other people are responsible for all their bad choices

a) you are justified in blaming and punishing.

b) you are justified in not searching out the causes of their bad behaviour.

These attitudes of the Free Willist affect personal relationships, politics, and international diplomacy or lack thereof.

- People who don’t have a choice concerning what they do, are still responsible for what they do.
- People who do have a choice concerning what they do, are still responsible for what they do.

- Doing follows the certainty of no-choice.
- Doing follows the confusion that makes choice necessary.

- Responsibility for doing pertains to doing.

- Responsibility for doing does not pertain to choice.
- Responsibility for doing does not pertain to no choice.

- Extenuating circumstances that affect the doer’s cause for doing, apply to the doer’s penalty, if any, for any damages caused by the doer.
- Extenuating circumstances include pre-meditation and accidents.

- This knowledge of the way things are affects relationships in the sense of knowing that folks are always doing what they must do.
- Knowing this gives attempts at forgiving folks for their actions a better chance of succeeding.
- It doesn't mean that one must be a punching bag because another must punch ... which is the choiceless cause for learning fancy footwork.
- Within the realm of words, words can also be thrown with the same intent as a punch is thrown.

What is a “person”? And how does responsibility apply to people? Am I a person, or am I aware of my personality and the associated habits, preferences and characteristics?

These can ALL be explained and defined in ways that fit in perfectly with other definitions and with and in ONE explanation for ALL things.

[Age]

What is a “person”? And how does responsibility apply to people? Am I a person, or am I aware of my personality and the associated habits, preferences and characteristics?

- Responsibility for doing pertains to doing.

Responsibility does not apply to pondering. Everyone is free to irresponsibly ponder as they must.

'you', human beings, have ONLY evolved to LEARN and KNOW what 'you' HAVE and WILL CONTINUE to LEARN and KNOW because of 'your' ABILITY to 'ponder' AND 'wonder', AND 'question', AND 'find answers'.

But answers AND knowing first COMES FROM 'pondering' and/or 'wondering'.

So, what would 'you', "walker", include in the so-called "irresponsible ponder" 'basket'?

And, 'you' are Right "walker", EVERY one is FREE to make CHOICES. Which is ALSO sometimes referred to as HAVING 'free will'. This 'free will', by the way, includes having the ABILITY to CHOOSE what to 'ponder' or 'wonder' OVER, EXACTLY.

The contents of awareness are arbitrary in the sense of, they come and go according to whatever the cause.

[Age]

Are you saying that if you are part of an endless chain of events that leads to something, you are responsible for that thing?

Are you saying that since you are a determinist you wouldn't treat someone who pushed your kid to the ground as if they were responsible for pushing your kid to the ground? That if you found out they had a habit of pushing kids around you wouldn't want society to treat them as if they, and not others, were responsible for those acts? Would it be wrong somehow to treat that person as the immediate cause of your kid hitting the ground and also as the kind of person who does such things?

I am not denying that certain kinds of moral judgment and blame might be reduced in some people, and perhaps rightly so. But still, person X did Y. And if we want to inhibit Y then we hold that person responsible (or answerable, the orgininal meaning of that word) for their action(s).

It makes practical sense to do this. Further we would also then understand our feelings of distaste, rage, fear relating to this person, given that these are not things we are not the original first cause of either.

I suppose since I am not a moral realist, I may view this differently from others. I don't think there is some objective moral good or bad/evil.

There IS, ACTUALLY, and if ANY one is Truly INTERESTED, then HOW 'it' is FOUND or OBTAINED can be VERY EASILY DONE and VERY SIMPLY EXPLAINED as well.

However I certainly hold people responsible for their actions - with all sorts of provisos for cirumstances and background. And would regardless of free will or determinist ontologies.

Just out of curiosity if people do NOT have the ABILITY to make choices, then HOW could they be held responsible for absolutely ANY thing?

And, if, to ANY one, the term 'free will' does NOT meaning having 'the ability to make choices', then what does the term 'free will' mean to that person?

[Age]

Age wrote:

Do people with a free will view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with other views?
Do so-called "free willists" care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?
Is it true that "determinists" tend to blame others and hence are less inclined to help others?
Is it true that "determinists" usually don't believe in having duties for the good of society as a whole?

Age makes a good point.

What manner of freedom is it that determinists may claim to have so they can claim responsibility for their decisions and actions?

That was NOT the point I was intending to make, but if it led to you considering this, then all the better that is. By the way, I thought the question 'you' posed here was some 'thing' EVERY one here would have ALREADY 'thought' ABOUT, and ALREADY ANSWERED as well.

Briefly, what's the connection between freedom and responsibility?

To me, OBVIOUSLY, if one does NOT have the ABILITY to make choices, then they could NOT, logically, be held responsible for 'that' what they had NO 'choice' over or NO ABILITY to 'decide' over.

It's easy to see how a free willist holds people responsible for their decisions and actions.

The sort of freedom that determinists can reasonably claim to possess is not all or nothing freedom like the freedom claimed by a free willist.

A determinist thinks people are free to choose what to do relative to their knowledge and understanding.

I thought the whole point of 'determinism' or of being a 'determinist' is that there are NO people who are FREE TO CHOOSE. BUT ONLY those who CLAIM to be so-called "determinists" can INFORM me of what they think and/or BELIEVE here.

ALSO, I thought that ALL people, no matter what they think or believe, 'choose what to do', relative to their, current at the time, knowledge and understanding. I am NOT sure how ANY person 'could choose what to do' WITHOUT their current knowledge and understanding.

Are 'you' able to explain how ANY one could 'choose what to do', which would NOT be relative to their knowledge and understanding "belinda"?

The more you know and understand the causes of your actions, and others' actions, the more you can apportion responsibility.

VERY, VERY True, and WHEN I came TO KNOW WHY I DO, EVERY thing that I do, which in turn led me to LEARNING and KNOWING WHY absolutely EVERY one does 'what they do', then I could accept and take FULLY and ABSOLUTE 'responsibility'.

For instance if you understand how you learned to become a criminal you can be all the more free to take responsibility for changing your behaviour.

But just learning HOW to do some 'things' does NOT necessarily mean that that one would WANT to take ANY responsibility for changing their behavior.

Some may also be now pondering over whether when one learns and understands WHY they do 'what they', then if they would take ANY responsibility for changing their behavior. But what I will say here now is that WHEN 'you' do LEARN and UNDERSTAND HOW and WHY EVERY one becomes WHO they ARE, and do WHAT they DO, then 'you' WILL WANT TO DO ALL 'you' can to CHANGE, 'your' behavior, for the BETTER.

But, OBVIOUSLY, one would HAVE TO LOOK AT "them" 'self', and AT what they DO, and ADMIT that what they do IS Wrong, FIRST, BEFORE they would even BEGIN to WANT to CHANGE, for the BETTER. AND, Honestly, WHO of 'you', adult human beings, REALLY do ANY thing, which is Wrong, and thus which would NEED CHANGING, anyway?

The amount of people who will, or have, responded and answered, 'me', here, to this question, SHOWS and REVEALS WHY CHANGE, for the BETTER, took SO LONG, back in the days when this was being written.

And for instance if you understand how Putin learned to be a fanatical nationalist you are better at negotiating with him and can take more responsibility for doing so.

What the human being known as "vladimir putin" here IS DOING is NOTHING DIFFERENT than ANY other human being who just DESPERATELY WANTED 'back' what 'it' BELIEVES IS, and WAS, "theirs".

I am not sure I answered Age as he expected to be answered.

ACTUALLY, I asked those questions, in that way, to just SHOW HOW one's 'point of view', 'free will', 'determinism' or ANY other 'point of view' does AFFECT the WAY people LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. Which, in turn, then AFFECTS the WAY they then LOOK AT and SEE 'the morals' and 'the characters' of "others". Which then EFFECTS the WAY they LOOK AT and JUDGE "another's" 'character', and 'morals', itself.

Age may have implied that altruism and ordinary human kindness are not matters of reason at all but are inherent affects that certain individuals lack. There is a risk that reasoning is emotionally flat.

So, INSTEAD of just asking me a question, in order to OBTAIN ACTUAL CLARITY here, "belinda" spent more time 'pondering' over SOME of the 'things' that I MAY HAVE been IMPLYING, and then spend time writing about 'them' and that, IF I was 'reasoning' what "belinda" was IMAGINING I MIGHT BE 'implying', then that 'reasoning', which is of "belinda's" OWN MAKING and of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with me, is then 'emotionally flat'.

It, ONCE AGAIN, would have been QUICKER and SIMPLER to just ask me a QUESTION, for CLARIFICATION, then it was to ASSUME 'things' that MAY HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN TRUE, and which WERE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING TRUE ANYWAY, and WRITING and TALKING ABOUT about a NON EXISTING 'thing',

[Age]

Are you saying that if you are part of an endless chain of events that leads to something, you are responsible for that thing?

Are you saying that since you are a determinist you wouldn't treat someone who pushed your kid to the ground as if they were responsible for pushing your kid to the ground? That if you found out they had a habit of pushing kids around you wouldn't want society to treat them as if they, and not others, were responsible for those acts? Would it be wrong somehow to treat that person as the immediate cause of your kid hitting the ground and also as the kind of person who does such things?

No. Where did I even hint that I meant something like that?

I am not denying that certain kinds of moral judgment and blame might be reduced in some people, and perhaps rightly so. But still, person X did Y. And if we want to inhibit Y then we hold that person responsible (or answerable, the orgininal meaning of that word) for their action(s).

That seems like a possible stance to take if you are always looking for someone to blame. So, why not blame the last person for everything? You can also take a different stance, of course. I do. I tend to look at the world through the "six-degrees-of-separation" lens, where everyone is connected through their words and actions. This also opens my eyes to the possibility that I may be close to the "crime scene", in terms of causing it, without even knowing. I might be part of the chain of events that led to the wrongdoing, and if I had responded better, the bad might not have happened. The next time, I should remember this, which would perhaps make me a better person and potentially prevent something bad from happening. I could have spoken up earlier, of course, or I could do it now, after the damage is already done. This is exactly why I want to take part in this debate.

1. To 'debate' involves picking a "side" and fighting or arguing for that "side". So, what is 'it' that you want to 'debate' here, EXACTLY?

2. HOW, EXACTLY, could you do absolutely ANY thing to make 'you' a better person, if and when 'you' have NO ability to choose?

It makes practical sense to do this. Further we would also then understand our feelings of distaste, rage, fear relating to this person, given that these are not things we are not the original first cause of either.

I suppose since I am not a moral realist, I may view this differently from others. I don't think there is some objective moral good or bad/evil. However I certainly hold people responsible for their actions - with all sorts of provisos for cirumstances and background. And would regardless of free will or determinist ontologies.

I don't think there is a morally objective good or bad.

There IS, ACTUALLY.

Nature can be "brutal" at times, and we are all made by nature. In evolution, every man was on his own. Each person did what they thought was best for them. Hobbes referred to this as the "state of nature," which was characterized by the absence of laws and, hence, crimes.

Here we have ANOTHER example of a HUGE ASSUMPTIONS, which is ALSO HUGELY Wrong.

But he thought that in such a world, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He therefore proposed that people agree to a social contract, as this would be in everyone's best interest. By the social contract, people should agree, either explicitly or implicitly, to give up some of their "natural" freedoms and submit to the authority in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or keeping the social order.
When it's important, dangerous people who want to cause trouble should be stopped. This could be done by putting them in jail or by doing something else, like giving them a thorough education in democratic values and civics.

LOL 'you' say this as though so-called 'democratic values and civics' is the RIGHT WAY and/or ONLY WAY. Which is Truly LAUGHABLE to say the least.

[Age]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

This excellent post is worth repeating in its entirety.

LOL

There were way TO MANY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect ASSUMPTIONS in that post, which, although NEEDED Correcting, it would take TO LONG to Correct, and this is WHY I did not even bother responding to that post.

Regarding your last sentence, though, I find it hard to see how believing in free will is consistent with anything more than a surface level of compassion for others, especially repeat offenders.

[Age]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

This excellent post is worth repeating in its entirety.

LOL

There were way TO MANY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect ASSUMPTIONS in that post, which, although NEEDED Correcting, it would take TO LONG to Correct, and this is WHY I did not even bother responding to that post.

Regarding your last sentence, though, I find it hard to see how believing in free will is consistent with anything more than a surface level of compassion for others, especially repeat offenders.

[Age]

"But I'm certainly not an expert in that field at all."

I know an expert in that field coughpromcough. He says nothing more can be done that isn't already being done through criminal rehabilitation efforts and social services (tho inefficiently) unless there are structural changes to society.

In fact, I agree with the idea that society needs to change now that we know that free will is a myth.

LOL

My train of thought tends to head in the direction of honoring the primary objective, which is to safeguard life and property and provide for those who have no property to protect.

LOL "safeguard property".

What do you envision 'property' NEEDS 'safeguarding' FROM, EXACTLY?

[Age]

the problem is we can't do much more in the way of treatment that we aren't already doing. u either re-educate/reform criminals or you dope em up on meds.

the clue is that if you change the environment you indirectly change the animal. and most crime originates in environments and circumstances that would make anyone in them, criminal. more than not the problem isn't genetic and has less to do with intelligence. i mean to say the dimwits that become the criminals in those environments wouldn't have become criminals if you put them somewhere else and gave them something constructive to do and be a part of.

LOL "the dimwits".

There is NO wonder WHY people END UP doing what they DO.

ya can't really see it through this lense tho unless you're a determinist (a better term: causalist) cuz you're predisposed to attribute unfortunate circumstances that produce criminals to the criminals themselves and their 'choices' rather than the criminal's environment, history, family life, education, employment opportunity, etc.

So, in other words, as soon as one says and states: "I am a determinist", then, and ONLY THEN, one can "SEE" what is being SAID and MEANT here, correct?

[Walker]

And, 'you' are Right "walker", EVERY one is FREE to make CHOICES.

- Action defines the choice.
- Therefore, making a choice is in fact, making an action, which is a redundancy of language. One simply acts.

- Thought leading up to the moment of action is not choosing.
- Thought leading up to the moment of action is pondering.

- When the confusion that causes choice is the consequence of pondering, the decision resulting from the pondering is defined by action.
- When the certainty of no choice is the consequence of pondering, the decision resulting from the pondering is defined by action.

Folks who get confused by this are mostly intellectuals who think that thought defines choice.
- Thought does not define choice.
- Action defines choice.
- Thought defines pondering.
- If one is not confused, pondering leads to no choice.

- On top of this, everyone acts according to what it is that they must do. If a dad has to blow the weekly paycheck buying rounds down at the pub while the power company turns off the electricity for his family, that is what he must do. Action defines what it is, that he had to do.

[Walker]

On a personal note, Age caps because he must. He has no choice about it.

If he doesn't cap, it's also because he must. He has no choice about that, either.

[Walker]

So, if "free will" is a thought in the "contents of awareness" that changes "as situations change," it, too, is "activated by situations" and is not "free." So, there is no such thing as free will; it is an illusion.

I'd agree if not for the last "be be," in your last sentence.
There are such things as illusions. They are distortions of reality that affect action.

[popeye1945]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

I personally think it goes deeper than our learned religious beliefs, metaphysics and customs.

The human mind has the ability to attribute the existence of other minds, where no actual direct perceptual ability is capable. That is, we infer other minds, and we do this implicitly through the observation of behaviour which appears directed, goal oriented and intentional. We infer an “agent” which is the source of and author of all actions produced by a particular body.

Especially where the attribution of behaviours isn’t directly perceptible, I.e. the reason behind the behaviour, we attribute those behaviours as being “created” out of nothing. The truth is, we are simply ignorant to the causes of the behaviour, we see behaviours occurring, and inferring the source of those behaviours to a projected agent, residing somewhere inside the organism.

Because we also feel ourselves to be this same kind of agent, existing separate from the projected world it inhabits, yet able to enact and cause change through the body we inhabit, we also project this same implicit understanding upon all inferred agents.

The truth of what the agent is, is hidden from us, seemingly. It is hidden only through a misunderstanding of the truth, and a projecting of a pragmatic construction of freely produced and uncaused action (action with a source in a subject with no causes) which attributes our actions and those of other projected agents to them as the source.

The reason this misunderstanding can persist is through misdirection of the mind, and the hiding of truth in plain sight. Nature assumes that, the agent existing (sic) in the mind will not investigate its own origins, and its own fundamental existence, it will not try to understand what it is. It knows that the agent is very distracted by objects, because those objects are viewed as providing pleasure and pain which the agent perceives to be either attained or avoided, and thus, as long as novelty exists within the world of objects, the truth of the subject or agent remains safely hidden.

Dimebag,

Yes indeed it does go deeper than indoctrination of church and culture. I think the ability to identify one's self with the self in other creatures is a metaphysical insight. It is not a theory for it just grabs you that you and the other self are indeed one, that you know that other creature like you is suffering. It is as I've stated previously the seed of compassion and compassion is the source of morality. It really does not matter what else you believe it is innate unless of course, you are a psychopath. It is the basis of our humanity, and disturbingly enough the halls of power are well stock in government and business with an abundance of psychopaths, the industrial military complex devoid of humanity. Another aspect one might consider is this, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction, all creature are reactionary creatures and this is the first principle of evolutionary development. It is also key to understanding how we are in and of the physical world. We are cause in the physical world and to our fellows, so in trying to understand them we must ask, what are they reacting to.

[Age]

I believe free will was a religious concept/creation in that the existence of sin depends upon it, and it so simplifies things in such a perplexing world. Certainly, believers, if they really are believers, are threatened by all the violence religion has in store for them after they die if they don't follow the righteously proscribed path. Try to keep in mind however that religions are biological extensions of or creations of man, so humanity has created something to self-monitor itself in the context of their times. It is true we have not changed much biologically, but we have changed massively in our understandings of ourselves and the world, so the old formulas don't quite make sense in modern times.

Compassion is the seed of morality and identification of one's self with the self of other creatures brings into manifestation compassion thus morality. This is more powerful in creating a moral system than any cosmological beliefs one might entertain free will or determinism. This identifying with other-selves is where care, compassion, and morality truly come from out of one's human nature. A striking example of this fact is the existence of the psychopath, they know today that the centers of the brain responsible for this identification are non-functional in the psychopath, no identification, no compassion and not restricted by any moral code. I think it matters little if one believes in free will or determinism if you identify with the self in another and thus the suffering of another you will have compassion and a sense of morality independent of any institutions that claims to know what they indeed cannot know.

I personally think it goes deeper than our learned religious beliefs, metaphysics and customs.

The human mind has the ability to attribute the existence of other minds, where no actual direct perceptual ability is capable. That is, we infer other minds, and we do this implicitly through the observation of behaviour which appears directed, goal oriented and intentional. We infer an “agent” which is the source of and author of all actions produced by a particular body.

Especially where the attribution of behaviours isn’t directly perceptible, I.e. the reason behind the behaviour, we attribute those behaviours as being “created” out of nothing. The truth is, we are simply ignorant to the causes of the behaviour, we see behaviours occurring, and inferring the source of those behaviours to a projected agent, residing somewhere inside the organism.

Because we also feel ourselves to be this same kind of agent, existing separate from the projected world it inhabits, yet able to enact and cause change through the body we inhabit, we also project this same implicit understanding upon all inferred agents.

The truth of what the agent is, is hidden from us, seemingly.

Although this may SEEM true, to some of 'you'
It is obviously False, to the rest of 'us'.

See, what thee Truth is, of not just what but who 'the agent is' as well,
Is CLEARLY SEEN,
ALREADY KNOWN.
and thus UNDERSTOOD, WELL.

Who and what 'the agent' REALLY IS, is NOT 'hidden', as such, but IS 'HIDING' behind ASSUMPTIONS, BELIEFS, and words and terms like, 'the human mind'.

It is BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS that PREVENTS and BLOCKS, or just 'HIDES', the REAL and True 'agent' from being REVEALED, thus CLEARLY SEEN and also KNOWN.

It is hidden only through a misunderstanding of the truth, and a projecting of a pragmatic construction of freely produced and uncaused action (action with a source in a subject with no causes) which attributes our actions and those of other projected agents to them as the source.

The reason this misunderstanding can persist is through misdirection of the mind, and the hiding of truth in plain sight. Nature assumes that, the agent existing (sic) in the mind will not investigate its own origins, and its own fundamental existence, it will not try to understand what it is. It knows that the agent is very distracted by objects, because those objects are viewed as providing pleasure and pain which the agent perceives to be either attained or avoided, and thus, as long as novelty exists within the world of objects, the truth of the subject or agent remains safely hidden.

That is; UNTIL 'it' was UN-COVERED and is REVEALED.

[Age]

And, 'you' are Right "walker", EVERY one is FREE to make CHOICES.

- Action defines the choice.

This statement here does not make sense, to me.

- Therefore, making a choice is in fact, making an action, which is a redundancy of language. One simply acts.

If you say so.

- Thought leading up to the moment of action is not choosing.

That would all depend on if the 'thought' was a 'choice' or not, would it not?

- Thought leading up to the moment of action is pondering.

So, to "walker", the 'thought', 'I am ACTUALLY going to do [such and such]', is 'pondering', correct?

Are 'you' AWARE "walker" that 'that thought' is NO 'pondering' AT ALL?

- When the confusion that causes choice is the consequence of pondering, the decision resulting from the pondering is defined by action.

Here is ANOTHER example of when one will say just about absolutely ANY thing in order to just 'try to' defend or back up and support their currently HELD ONTO BELIEF.

- When the certainty of no choice is the consequence of pondering, the decision resulting from the pondering is defined by action.

Okay, if you say so.

Folks who get confused by this are mostly intellectuals who think that thought defines choice.
- Thought does not define choice.
- Action defines choice.
- Thought defines pondering.
- If one is not confused, pondering leads to no choice.

Okay.

- On top of this, everyone acts according to what it is that they must do. If a dad has to blow the weekly paycheck buying rounds down at the pub while the power company turns off the electricity for his family, that is what he must do. Action defines what it is, that he had to do.

Okay, but to just clarify, to 'you', is EVERY one FREE to make CHOICES or NOT?