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

[CHNOPS]

Age, you are wrong, but you know what I think about you.

Too much Ego that quit the desire to explain to you what you have understanding wrong.

The REAL reason 'you' QUIT is because 'you' are just NOT ABLE to EXPLAIN WHY, nor even WHERE and WHAT I am SUPPOSEDLY understanding "wrong" here.

And this is BECAUSE that EGO is getting in the way and just BELIEVES what 'it' does although 'it' has NO ACTUAL PROOF, AT ALL.

That EGO just ONLY WANTS 'me' to be WRONG.

Is like explaining a kid the basics. Is boring and you dont influence much people in your day to day, so it's not productive neither.

[iambiguous]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do. So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society.

As on the compatibilist thread, how can we not start with this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

With all that scientists, philosophers and theologians simply do not yet grasp regarding anything that we think, feel, say and do.

And that would certainly include posting here. And reading the posts. And reacting to them.

Some determinists [compelled or otherwise] would argue that some believe in free will and others do not only because they were never able not to believe either one or the other. That, in other words, what you believe is interchangeable with what others do not believe in the only possible reality. And that's because the consequences in regard to the behaviors we choose given one belief rather than another are no less inherent, necessary manifestations of the only possible reality.

Politics and society then unfold only as they must.

And though a part of me intuitively, viscerally is convinced that this is not the case and I am of my own volition choosing to type these words rather than others...that too say some determinists is just a manifestation of a human psychology that is no less compelled by a material brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

What is then needed is some "dualistic" explanation. Proof that the human brain is unlike any other matter. Which, of course, most then attribute to a soul...to God.

For example,

* do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We follow or do not follow the rules of society as nature has programmed us to.

* do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We care no more or no less than nature has programmed us to.

And on and on regarding anything that we think, feel, say or do.

Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.

Note some determinists argue, you are asking only what you were never able to not ask. And the answers others give are no less compelled unless someone is able to pin down definitively that "somehow" human brains did acquire free will when matter evolved into living things.

But even then it's the human brain that is assessing itself. All the way back to the most mind-boggling questions of them all:

* Why something instead of nothing?
* Why this something and not something else?
* Where does the human condition fit into the complete understanding of existence itself?
* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, alternate Matrix worlds, etc.?
* Does God exist?

[Age]

Age, you are wrong, but you know what I think about you.

Too much Ego that quit the desire to explain to you what you have understanding wrong.

The REAL reason 'you' QUIT is because 'you' are just NOT ABLE to EXPLAIN WHY, nor even WHERE and WHAT I am SUPPOSEDLY understanding "wrong" here.

And this is BECAUSE that EGO is getting in the way and just BELIEVES what 'it' does although 'it' has NO ACTUAL PROOF, AT ALL.

That EGO just ONLY WANTS 'me' to be WRONG.

Is like explaining a kid the basics. Is boring and you dont influence much people in your day to day, so it's not productive neither.

AGAIN, that EGO ONLY BELIEVES that my understanding IS WRONG, but, REALLY that EGO has ABSOLUTELY NOTHiNG AT ALL to back up and substantiate that CLAIM, and so this is the REAL reason WHY 'you' ARE TOTALLY INCAPABLE of EXPLAINING what you BELIEVE and CLAIM.

And what is becoming VERY CLEAR here now, and which you are PROVING True here now, is that it is YOUR 'understanding' which is ACTUALLY Wrong here now.

[BigMike]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do. So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society.

As on the compatibilist thread, how can we not start with this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

From what you say further down, I think that when you say "become alive stuff," you mean that it was taken over by a spirit. If not, please explain what you mean by the phrase.

Most scientists, if I may say so, agree with me that "alive stuff" is just matter that is subject to the laws of nature. Physical and biochemical events in the human body (like sense organs, nerve impulses, and muscle contractions) are the only cause of mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition). Subjective mental events, whatever they are, can't happen without matching physical and biochemical events happening in the body. When the body dies, all mental activity dies too. However, subjective mental events can't change physical events.

[... lots of trivial stuff ...]
What is then needed is some "dualistic" explanation. Proof that the human brain is unlike any other matter. Which, of course, most then attribute to a soul...to God.

How does this imply that "proof that the human brain is different from any other matter" is required? Here, as I referred to previously, you appear to conflate "living matter" with "spirit-possessed matter." If this is how you define "living matter," your statement is essentially meaningless: "living matter is living matter," so there is nothing to prove.
Please explain what you mean by "alive matter".

For example,

* do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We follow or do not follow the rules of society as nature has programmed us to.

But my question was, to use your terminology, "Will the way your brain is programmed make you more inclined to follow society's rules if it is conditioned to believe it is regulated by the laws of physics?" In other words, if we don't believe that we and others have a free choice, will we tend to look for other guiding principles than the illusion we call "free will"?

* do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We care no more or no less than nature has programmed us to.

And on and on regarding anything that we think, feel, say or do.

So I take it that you subscribe to all men for themselves, and there is no benefit in looking after each other. And I believe this is your accidental response, as a believer in free will, to the topic's introductory question: "Does the "Free Will" view change morals and character?"

[Iwannaplato]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do. So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society.

As on the compatibilist thread, how can we not start with this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

With all that scientists, philosophers and theologians simply do not yet grasp regarding anything that we think, feel, say and do.

And that would certainly include posting here. And reading the posts. And reacting to them.

Some determinists [compelled or otherwise] would argue that some believe in free will and others do not only because they were never able not to believe either one or the other. That, in other words, what you believe is interchangeable with what others do not believe in the only possible reality. And that's because the consequences in regard to the behaviors we choose given one belief rather than another are no less inherent, necessary manifestations of the only possible reality.

Politics and society then unfold only as they must.

And though a part of me intuitively, viscerally is convinced that this is not the case and I am of my own volition choosing to type these words rather than others...that too say some determinists is just a manifestation of a human psychology that is no less compelled by a material brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

What is then needed is some "dualistic" explanation. Proof that the human brain is unlike any other matter. Which, of course, most then attribute to a soul...to God.

For example,

* do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We follow or do not follow the rules of society as nature has programmed us to.

* do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We care no more or no less than nature has programmed us to.

And on and on regarding anything that we think, feel, say or do.

Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.

Note some determinists argue, you are asking only what you were never able to not ask. And the answers others give are no less compelled unless someone is able to pin down definitively that "somehow" human brains did acquire free will when matter evolved into living things.

But even then it's the human brain that is assessing itself. All the way back to the most mind-boggling questions of them all:

* Why something instead of nothing?
* Why this something and not something else?
* Where does the human condition fit into the complete understanding of existence itself?
* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, alternate Matrix worlds, etc.?
* Does God exist?

You have your thread to discuss these topics. He is asking what effects various beliefs have.

[Age]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do. So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society.

As on the compatibilist thread, how can we not start with this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

With all that scientists, philosophers and theologians simply do not yet grasp regarding anything that we think, feel, say and do.

And that would certainly include posting here. And reading the posts. And reacting to them.

Some determinists [compelled or otherwise] would argue that some believe in free will and others do not only because they were never able not to believe either one or the other. That, in other words, what you believe is interchangeable with what others do not believe in the only possible reality. And that's because the consequences in regard to the behaviors we choose given one belief rather than another are no less inherent, necessary manifestations of the only possible reality.

Politics and society then unfold only as they must.

And though a part of me intuitively, viscerally is convinced that this is not the case and I am of my own volition choosing to type these words rather than others...that too say some determinists is just a manifestation of a human psychology that is no less compelled by a material brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

What is then needed is some "dualistic" explanation. Proof that the human brain is unlike any other matter. Which, of course, most then attribute to a soul...to God.

For example,

* do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We follow or do not follow the rules of society as nature has programmed us to.

* do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We care no more or no less than nature has programmed us to.

And on and on regarding anything that we think, feel, say or do.

Note that I'm not asking what you think about free will. I'm asking if and how a person's position affects their views in general.

Note some determinists argue, you are asking only what you were never able to not ask. And the answers others give are no less compelled unless someone is able to pin down definitively that "somehow" human brains did acquire free will when matter evolved into living things.

But even then it's the human brain that is assessing itself. All the way back to the most mind-boggling questions of them all:

* Why something instead of nothing?
* Why this something and not something else?
* Where does the human condition fit into the complete understanding of existence itself?
* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, alternate Matrix worlds, etc.?
* Does God exist?

You have your thread to discuss these topics. He is asking what effects various beliefs have.

What effects ALL 'beliefs' have, is that they STOP and PREVENT one from SEEING, HEARING, ACCEPTING absolutely ANY 'thing', which opposes that BELIEF.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

What effects ALL 'beliefs' have, is that they STOP and PREVENT one from SEEING, HEARING, ACCEPTING absolutely ANY 'thing', which opposes that BELIEF.

What Age calls beliefs, I call stupid intransigence.

We have to believe otherwise we could not compare what we believe with what someone else believes. What goes wrong is when someone lacks the imagination to see the other point of view.

[Age]

Age wrote:

What effects ALL 'beliefs' have, is that they STOP and PREVENT one from SEEING, HEARING, ACCEPTING absolutely ANY 'thing', which opposes that BELIEF.

What Age calls beliefs, I call stupid intransigence.

And what "belinda" calls 'stupid intransigence', I call just STUPID BELIEFS.

We have to believe otherwise we could not compare what we believe with what someone else believes.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is MORE PROOF of just how Wrong and STUPID that so-called "education-system" WAS, back in the days when this was being written.

This one ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' HAS TO BELIEVE, and as such lacks the imagination and the ability to even just LOOK AT and QUESTION "another's" point of view, let alone actually SEEING "another's" point of view.

What goes wrong is when someone lacks the imagination to see the other point of view.

Which is EXACTLY WHAT OCCURS WHEN one BELIEVES what they SEE and SAY is true.

For "others" it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to just compare each "others" VIEWS, without necessarily BELIEVING those VIEWS to be true, right, NOR correct.

Oh, and by the way, I FOUND that comparing VIEWS, INSTEAD of comparing BELIEFS, produced FAR MORE productive, enlightening, insightful, rewarding, AND satisfying conversations and discussions, and ALWAYS I will add.

And if ANY one wants ACTUAL PROOF "themself", then just LOOK throughout these writings, in this forum.

Also, by your very OWN "logic" here "belinda", if 'you' just STOPPING forming and thus just STOPPED having BELIEFS, the NO "other" one would HAVE TO HAVE a BELIEF, in order to compare THEIR BELIEF with YOUR BELIEF, correct?

[iambiguous]

Some people don't believe in free will, but others do. So I'd like to ask if people's beliefs about free will tend to affect how they feel about politics and society.

As on the compatibilist thread, how can we not start with this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

From what you say further down, I think that when you say "become alive stuff," you mean that it was taken over by a spirit. If not, please explain what you mean by the phrase.

Click.

No, the "spirit" or "soul" narrative revolves around assumptions made by the "I believe in God" members here. What I mean is that "somehow" matter in the form of the Big Bang and galaxies and stars and planets and moons and all the elements from the Periodic Table became living biological matter...single cells all the way up to us.

Most scientists, if I may say so, agree with me that "alive stuff" is just matter that is subject to the laws of nature. Physical and biochemical events in the human body (like sense organs, nerve impulses, and muscle contractions) are the only cause of mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition). Subjective mental events, whatever they are, can't happen without matching physical and biochemical events happening in the body. When the body dies, all mental activity dies too. However, subjective mental events can't change physical events.

That's my point. "Subjective mental events, whatever they are..."

We still don't know what they are. Definitively. Going back to how they fit into an equally definitive understanding of existence itself.

My point revolves around exploring the extent to which what you think they are includes your own arguments themselves. The very things that you post here being or not being entirely embedded in the only possible reality in turn. How on earth would we even go about pinning that down when that involves the brain explaining itself.

Given Rummy's Rule..."but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

What is then needed is some "dualistic" explanation. Proof that the human brain is unlike any other matter. Which, of course, most then attribute to a soul...to God.

How does this imply that "proof that the human brain is different from any other matter" is required? Here, as I referred to previously, you appear to conflate "living matter" with "spirit-possessed matter." If this is how you define "living matter," your statement is essentially meaningless: "living matter is living matter," so there is nothing to prove.
Please explain what you mean by "alive matter".

Given how you understand determinism, is how I define things and conflate things an actual manifestation of my capacity as an autonomous human being? Could I have opted freely to define and conflate things differently?

Is my explanation of "living matter" above wholly determined by my brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter...or not?

For example,

* do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We follow or do not follow the rules of society as nature has programmed us to.

But my question was, to use your terminology, "Will the way your brain is programmed make you more inclined to follow society's rules if it is conditioned to believe it is regulated by the laws of physics?" In other words, if we don't believe that we and others have a free choice, will we tend to look for other guiding principles than the illusion we call "free will"?

Again, either you are making an important point here that I am simply unable to grasp [and I certainly acknowledge that may be the case] or I am making an important point that you are unable to grasp.

My point being this: that given determinism as my material brain compels me to understand it here and now, what either one of us believe or do not believe and what either one of us look for or do not look for is an inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality. A fated/destined reality going back to whatever set into motion the laws of matter themselves.

* do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We care no more or no less than nature has programmed us to.

And on and on regarding anything that we think, feel, say or do.

So I take it that you subscribe to all men for themselves, and there is no benefit in looking after each other. And I believe this is your accidental response, as a believer in free will, to the topic's introductory question: "Does the "Free Will" view change morals and character?"

No, I take it that anything that either one of us takes here we were never able not to take otherwise because our brains are no less manifestations of nature and its immutable laws.

As for the question "Does the "Free Will" view change morals and character?"...

Given your own understanding of determinism, take this question to Mary at the abortion clinic just before she shreds Jane into oblivion.

Now, given my own understanding of free will, her answer will revolve around the points I raise about "I" in the is/ought world in the OPs of these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

[iambiguous]

You have your thread to discuss these topics. He is asking what effects various beliefs have.

Click.

On my thread however I make the assumption that I was never able to not post on this thread because everything that I think, feel, say and do I was never able not to.

And speaking of that thread, you're up:

Okay, but if you were never able not to see this...and they were never able not to think and feel other than as they must? They are "responsible" only in the sense that the human brain is compelled by the laws of matter to create for them the psychological illusion of believing that they are free to opt as they do in the fated/destined discussion.

So, you are saying they are not responsible and the ways one generally reacts to criminals are innappropriate in a determinist universe.

What I'm suggesting is that even what I say here is embedded in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Compelled to or otherwise, I don't know how to make this any clearer.

If my brain is wholly in sync with the laws of matter then anything that I think, feel, say and do is entirely fated/destined to be what it can only be...what it must be. Whether I say something about a criminal or react to something a criminal does or am the criminal myself.

Either human brain matter is wholly like all the other matter that we know of or it is not.

Again, we can note "lower animals" like ants and bees. They are conscious creatures. They need food and water and shelter and the ability to reproduce and defend themselves just like us. But they are compelled entirely by instinct...by biological imperatives...to accomplish these tasks.

But what about us and our far more complex, self-conscious brains? When matter evolved into us, did autonomy "somehow" come into existence? Sure, that's possible. God or otherwise. But, as of now, we just don't know. Or, rather, I don't know. Do you?

The relevant definition of the responsible is

being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

And why would defining things be any different?

To the discussion? I find that an odd question. You argued based on your definition of responsible above. I went with a dictionary definition and focused on behavior/reactions. If you don't think definitions are important, why did you focus on defining the term?

Again and again and again: from the perspective of the hard determinists as, "here and now" I understand them, their brains compel them to both 1] define something only as they must and then 2] to argue only as they must about defining something itself in the only possible world.

You went to the dictionary because you were never able not to. You focused on what you could never have not focused on. I think definitions are as important or unimportant as my brain compels me to think that.

Now, if you think otherwise because you think that "somehow" your brain is not like my brain here, fine. But how exactly would you go about demonstrating that -- scientifically? philosophically? theologically? -- beyond creating an argument embedded in a world of words?

No, I always come back to this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Did I say anything about an autonomy?

There you go again. Merely assuming that what you did say you said of your own volition. While some determinists insist that you said only what you were never able not to say.

And how can anything be "off topic" in the only possible reality?

Again, let's take your abstract point here...

No, so this is off topic, along with comments I took out on Buddhists and Pantheists and theism. And then bringing up other cosmological theories that do not chance the specific issue and language I focused on. The approach you have to responding here, is to just cast in any thoughts you have about other people's posts and, I am guessing even hallucinated posts (have Buddhists really come and argued in this thread in favor of free will???)

...and note its applicability to Mary aborting Jane. Or another context of your own choosing. Anything to bring these ponderous intellectual contraptions down out of the clouds.

Only I'm "stuck" even then in that "here and now" I have been compelled by my brain to believe that this too is no less an inherent manifestation of the only possible material reality. The Flatland syndrome that I don't have a clue as to how to extricate myself from given this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

A murderer murders. We think determinism holds, And we consider him responsible, in the sense that he is the local cause of the murder and that if we separate out this person from society, he can't kill other people. In a free will universe, we think he murdered and is the one who chose to do this in all senses and separate him out, in prison, as in the other universe, so he won't choose to do this again.

But then the part where some determinists insist that you were never able not to type those words conveying a meaning you were never able not to have. And I was never able not to read them and react to them other than how my brain compels me to react.

NOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do not bring in the issue of objectivism. I am not saying that we can prove that these behaviors are immoral. I am saying that determinsim being the case need not inhibit the incarceration and holding responsible of people who did things.

Sure, we can assume that I have free will and can opt not to bring that in. Just as we can assume that even though criminals cannot not commit their crimes, we are still free to either opt to hold them responsible and incarcerate them or not.

But, given my own understanding of a wholly determined universe, the only way that can make any sense at all is given the fact that the brains of some compel them to think that it makes sense.

Please demonstrate how it is logically inconsistent to incarcerate a murderer if one believes in determinism.

How is logic itself not subsumed in the only possible world? In the only possible reality, how can anything at all ever be inconsistent if what it is was never able to not be other than as it must be?

Also, as far as I am able grasp these relationships "here and now", phyllo was, in turn, never able not to say what he did. Everything under the sun is going around and around in the only possible circles there can be.

Utterly irrelevant. It may come as a shock to you, I understand what determinism entails. And I would be shocked if Phyllo doesn't also.

Same thing. How can anything that unfolds in the only possible reality ever be other than completely relevant given that everything that is matter is compelled to unfold in the only possible reality?

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

At no point am I assuming autonomy here.

It's very odd. We are talking about whether people should be treated as if they are responsible for their actions if determinism is the case. I bring up semantics in relation to the word responsible and for some reason you keep responding as if I am saying that semantics creates some exception to determinism. I think this kind of thing is what is happening when you and Phyllo argue. And the bringing in Buddhists, Pantheists, theists, other cosmologies that have Big Bangs before the last one are all utterly irrelevant. So much noise and so little signal. It doesn't matter IN THE LEAST for the issues I raised if determinism goes back even further in time. That doesn't matter.

Compelled to or not, we think about these things differently. Everything matters only as it ever could matter in the only possible reality. Including you saying that it doesn't matter.

Only I'm the first to note the obvious: that given what neither one of us knows about the inherent/necessary/ontological relationship between the human condition and the existence of existence itself, what are the odds that my conclusions here are the one and only definitive assessment?

Like yours are, right?

[Iwannaplato]

Age wrote:

What effects ALL 'beliefs' have, is that they STOP and PREVENT one from SEEING, HEARING, ACCEPTING absolutely ANY 'thing', which opposes that BELIEF.

What Age calls beliefs, I call stupid intransigence.

We have to believe otherwise we could not compare what we believe with what someone else believes. What goes wrong is when someone lacks the imagination to see the other point of view.

His definition of belief is not the typical one. That's fine of course, but when other people tell him they believe something he interprets this through his definition not the way other people mean. If I say a believe X, it means that I think X is true. That doesn't mean I can't see other evidence or that nothing would change my mind. Hardly.

What you quoted above that he said is utterly ridiculous. Even very stubborn people who cling to their beliefs and hate cognitive dissonance still change their minds about some things or could if their experiences were strong enough to break through.

And it is bizarre that he assumes that his definition of belief is what other people mean when they use that word.

And, obviously, that idiotic sentence that you quoted of his, is a belief he has.

That said, I realized that it seemed like he may have a serious problem and this extreme belief and positioning he takes above everyone else is much more fragile that he comes across. I don't know. But it started to feel unkind to take him at face value. So, I avoid him now.

[Iwannaplato]

Click.

On my thread however I make the assumption that I was never able to not post on this thread because everything that I think, feel, say and do I was never able not to.

I read something like that several times on your thread. Have you ever considered how rude it is to repeat things you have said before to the same person. I could understand if it seemed like I didn't understand, but this is not the case.

And the rest is just you hijacking. I don't assume at all that this is your intent. But it's Big Mike's thread. I'll let him deal with you or not.

[BigMike]

Most scientists, if I may say so, agree with me that "alive stuff" is just matter that is subject to the laws of nature. Physical and biochemical events in the human body (like sense organs, nerve impulses, and muscle contractions) are the only cause of mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition). Subjective mental events, whatever they are, can't happen without matching physical and biochemical events happening in the body. When the body dies, all mental activity dies too. However, subjective mental events can't change physical events.

That's my point. "Subjective mental events, whatever they are..."

We still don't know what they are. Definitively. Going back to how they fit into an equally definitive understanding of existence itself.

My point revolves around exploring the extent to which what you think they are includes your own arguments themselves. The very things that you post here being or not being entirely embedded in the only possible reality in turn. How on earth would we even go about pinning that down when that involves the brain explaining itself.

Given Rummy's Rule..."but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

I don't know where to start or if I should even try to answer. But let me start by saying that physics is a hypothetico-deductive science. That means that we will never know anything with absolute certainty; we can only improve our understanding by adding more and more observations to our fact basis upon which we try to derive specific "knowledge," i.e., educated guesses with a high degree of probability of being reliable. When I speak of scientific truths and facts, it is to be understood that they are based on evidence that has not been proven, nor can it ever be, but that it has also never been disproven.

So, my answer to your question ("how much my own arguments are included in what I think are subjective mental events?") is "all of them". To be more precise, I think every thought, every perception (for example, blueness and heat sensation), and every word I speak and think, in short, every subjective mental event, is just semantics (in the first-order-language sense): interpretations of the spoken and the body's natural language that try to capture the primitive idea of entailment, deduction or implication. In fact, I think that's what subjective mental events are all about, that's all there is, but I'm not sure; I can't be. Lucky for me, I don't have to be.

What is then needed is some "dualistic" explanation. Proof that the human brain is unlike any other matter. Which, of course, most then attribute to a soul...to God.

How does this imply that "proof that the human brain is different from any other matter" is required? Here, as I referred to previously, you appear to conflate "living matter" with "spirit-possessed matter." If this is how you define "living matter," your statement is essentially meaningless: "living matter is living matter," so there is nothing to prove.
Please explain what you mean by "alive matter".

Given how you understand determinism, is how I define things and conflate things an actual manifestation of my capacity as an autonomous human being? Could I have opted freely to define and conflate things differently?

You could not. However, if you get new knowledge today that influences your conduct, you may "define and conflate things differently" in the future.

Is my explanation of "living matter" above wholly determined by my brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter...or not?

I must have overlooked your "explanation of "living matter"" because I cannot find it anywhere. Have you neglected to post it?

For example,

* do people with a determinist view of the world tend to follow the rules of society more than those with a compatibilist or libertarian view?

No, the hardcore determinists note, the rules of matter are applicable to all brains. We follow or do not follow the rules of society as nature has programmed us to.

But my question was, to use your terminology, "Will the way your brain is programmed make you more inclined to follow society's rules if it is conditioned to believe it is regulated by the laws of physics?" In other words, if we don't believe that we and others have a free choice, will we tend to look for other guiding principles than the illusion we call "free will"?

Again, either you are making an important point here that I am simply unable to grasp [and I certainly acknowledge that may be the case] or I am making an important point that you are unable to grasp.

My point being this: that given determinism as my material brain compels me to understand it here and now, what either one of us believe or do not believe and what either one of us look for or do not look for is an inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality. A fated/destined reality going back to whatever set into motion the laws of matter themselves.

This is true, but only in the present. Because we can remember, we can think about what has happened in the past, look for patterns, and come to logical conclusions that help us figure out what will happen in the future. Memory and reason let us know what will happen before it does. This is a unique skill that both people and some animals have, and the wisest people tend to use it whenever they can. This, of course, seems to hurt the fatalist view that everything is "a fated reality that goes back to whatever set the laws of matter in motion," even though it doesn't in reality. Memory and reason are part of the physical universe and follow the same physical laws as everything else, so let's make the most of them.

[iambiguous]

Click.

On my thread however I make the assumption that I was never able to not post on this thread because everything that I think, feel, say and do I was never able not to.

I read something like that several times on your thread. Have you ever considered how rude it is to repeat things you have said before to the same person. I could understand if it seemed like I didn't understand, but this is not the case.

And the rest is just you hijacking. I don't assume at all that this is your intent. But it's Big Mike's thread. I'll let him deal with you or not.

Click.

Note to others:

Given a free will world, decide for yourself what is prompting this antagonism from Iwannaplato.

I have my own suspicions; in case anyone is interested.

And I repeat things to others here just as others repeat things to others. Why? Because we make points to others and we respond to the points of others...but the communication often isn't in sync. So all we can do is to try again.

Fortunately, no one here is required to either read or to respond to the posts of others. Well, unless we are compelled to of course.

On my compatibilism thread, I sustained an exchange with Iwannaplato. I repeated my points and Iwannaplato repeated his or her points. Trying to understand how the other thinks about free will, determinism and compatibilism.

That's what we do on threads like this.

[popeye1945]

All creatures are reactionary creatures, one can apparently make choices between the possibilities of numerous reactions but one cannot, not react to one's environment. When one does not know what one's next thought is going to be or where it comes from, how on earth does one conclude that they have free will, they have a feeling of having free will perhaps, but that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Even identification with others thus the arising of compassion comes from a more primordial source that consciousness has no access to. Egocentrism is the mother of the belief in free will, it is the belief in self-control that does not exist. If that concept is to much for society to deal with, it does not make it wrong, just unpopular.