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

[Belinda]

Why do those 'you' who BELIEVE that there is only a 'deterministic world' also BELIEVE that 'you' can CHOOSE to behave in ways, or are ABLE to CHANGE things, which in turn would make 'this world' a better place?

Determinists believe that such freedom as they have to make this world a better place relates to the individual's reasoning capacity, knowledge, and empathy.
The believer in Free Will believes that their ability to choose is not relative but is absolute, and can overcome stupidity, ignorance, and vanity.

Both Free Willists and determinists choose. Many animals can actively choose, who have no interest in ontology. Choice is not a synonym for Free Will.

[Walker]

And, what is with the "dirty finger nails" REMARK.

Just a friendly PS reminder to maintain Covid consciousness.

That's your one answer plucked from the avalanche of questions.

[henry quirk]

Determinists believe that such freedom as they have to make this world a better place relates to the individual's reasoning capacity, knowledge, and empathy.

No. By definition, the determinist is not, cannot be, free. His reasoning capacity, knowledge, and empathy change nuthin' becuz, like himself, everything and -one can only do what is necessary. He's a domino. He'll fall whether he likes it or not.

*

The believer in Free Will believes that their ability to choose is not relative but is absolute, and can overcome stupidity, ignorance, and vanity.

No. By definition, the free willist is free, nuthin' more or less. Bein' free doesn't make him intelligent, knowing, or modest. He is the particle that chooses its own speed and direction without any guarantee his choice is wise.

[Iwannaplato]

Determinists believe that such freedom as they have to make this world a better place relates to the individual's reasoning capacity, knowledge, and empathy.

I don't think they believe that but could you explain how one is free to do those things that sound positive, but not free to do things that would sound negative?

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

By definition, the determinist is not, cannot be, free. His reasoning capacity, knowledge, and empathy change nuthin' becuz, like himself, everything and -one can only do what is necessary. He's a domino. He'll fall whether he likes it or not.

People are not free, as all living things are not free. However some people are more able to decrease the probability of what is to happen. For instance, the weather forecast may be for a hurricane and the more free person can pay attention to the forecast, and secure his boat and his windows. The less free person is maybe a fatalist, or maybe an idiot , or maybe a small child,who does not do anything to help himself.

[Belinda]

Determinists believe that such freedom as they have to make this world a better place relates to the individual's reasoning capacity, knowledge, and empathy.

I don't think they believe that but could you explain how one is free to do those things that sound positive, but not free to do things that would sound negative?

A person a) is free to self harm or murder, but a person b) (who is more free than a)can decide whether or not suicide, or self harm, or murder is the option they truly want.

The person who has insight into their own motives and needs is more free than the person who lacks such insight.

[henry quirk]

People are not free

Yes they are, each and every one.

*

as all living things are not free.

If it's a person, it's free.

*

However some people are more able to decrease the probability of what is to happen.

Sure, but that ain't got nuthin' to do with bein' free.

[Iwannaplato]

A person a) is free to self harm or murder, but a person b) (who is more free than a)can decide whether or not suicide, or self harm, or murder is the option they truly want.

But that's true regardless of whether it is positive or negative. A person who can never kill would be less free than someone who could choose to not kill or to kill. To be empathetic or not be empathetic. To educate themselves (on something) or not to do that.

The person who has insight into their own motives and needs is more free than the person who lacks such insight.

I would tend to agree with this, but again, this need not be dependent on kindness, empathy and other generally thought of as positive qualities. Further a sociopath is generally not encumbered by guilt. So, they can choose without this added obstacle.

Though this word 'free' can mean different things. In any given moment, the person who is more versatile is no more free than someone who is not. It's just that over time they will display a wider range of reactions and actions. They have utterly determined but more nuanced responses to events/people. And also initiate a wider range of 'things'. But at the level of ontology, they are no more free.

[BigMike]

Why do those 'you' who BELIEVE that there is only a 'deterministic world' also BELIEVE that 'you' can CHOOSE to behave in ways, or are ABLE to CHANGE things, which in turn would make 'this world' a better place?

Consider what it means to make a choice. To choose anything means, at its most fundamental level, to select the most desired option among a number of alternatives. This implies that the alternatives must be able to be ordered transitively from least to most preferred. By transitively, I mean that, given two options, one option is at least as good as the other in one's view; when x is at least as good as y, we say x ≥ y. Transitivity means that if x ≥ y and y ≥ z, then x ≥ z. This permits the ordering to occur. Without this, you wouldn't be able to choose. When you encounter a tie, the objective is changed to break the tie. For example, you could use "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe," flip a coin, or do something else.

The main point is that choosing is like solving an optimization problem within a feasible domain. It's about finding the answer that maximizes one's preferences while still being realistic. You can use different words to describe choice, but in the end, your definition will probably be the same as the one I sketched above. This definition was first made by Nobel laureate John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern in their excellent book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior." Moreover, comparisons such as "x is at least as good as y" are simple for the brain to do, and consequently, so are choices.

This process results in there always being a single "best" option; the determined one. Clearly, one may ask what "best" means, "in what way is it the best?" But this doesn't change the fact that there is only one best choice in every situation and context, no matter "in what way it is the best." So, your physical brain decides what your body should do, and there is only one option, the one it figures is best based on logic. Of course, your brain might have made a different choice in hindsight, but it didn't have that hindsight at the time. As one acquires more and more hindsight, one's goal selections and subsequent decisions tend to become increasingly well-suited to meeting one's needs, and the needs of those closest to us.

[Belinda]

A person a) is free to self harm or murder, but a person b) (who is more free than a)can decide whether or not suicide, or self harm, or murder is the option they truly want.

But that's true regardless of whether it is positive or negative. A person who can never kill would be less free than someone who could choose to not kill or to kill. To be empathetic or not be empathetic. To educate themselves (on something) or not to do that.

The person who has insight into their own motives and needs is more free than the person who lacks such insight.

I would tend to agree with this, but again, this need not be dependent on kindness, empathy and other generally thought of as positive qualities. Further a sociopath is generally not encumbered by guilt. So, they can choose without this added obstacle.

Though this word 'free' can mean different things. In any given moment, the person who is more versatile is no more free than someone who is not. It's just that over time they will display a wider range of reactions and actions. They have utterly determined but more nuanced responses to events/people. And also initiate a wider range of 'things'. But at the level of ontology, they are no more free.

At the level of ontology nothing happened that did not necessarily happen. We don't choose from the level of ontology, we choose from the level of possibility from where we make probabilistic gambles. There is always an element of chance and there is always an element of choice; however the person who knows more and has better judgment adds a higher degree of choice to their choice: chance ratio.

[Iwannaplato]

A person a) is free to self harm or murder, but a person b) (who is more free than a)can decide whether or not suicide, or self harm, or murder is the option they truly want.

But that's true regardless of whether it is positive or negative. A person who can never kill would be less free than someone who could choose to not kill or to kill. To be empathetic or not be empathetic. To educate themselves (on something) or not to do that.

The person who has insight into their own motives and needs is more free than the person who lacks such insight.

I would tend to agree with this, but again, this need not be dependent on kindness, empathy and other generally thought of as positive qualities. Further a sociopath is generally not encumbered by guilt. So, they can choose without this added obstacle.

Though this word 'free' can mean different things. In any given moment, the person who is more versatile is no more free than someone who is not. It's just that over time they will display a wider range of reactions and actions. They have utterly determined but more nuanced responses to events/people. And also initiate a wider range of 'things'. But at the level of ontology, they are no more free.

At the level of ontology nothing happened that did not necessarily happen. We don't choose from the level of ontology, we choose from the level of possibility from where we make probabilistic gambles. There is always an element of chance and there is always an element of choice; however the person who knows more and has better judgment adds a higher degree of choice to their choice: chance ratio.

Not in determinism. All that person does is have more types of response over time. But in the moment they make the choice they make just like the person who knows less.

Person who knows less will always make choice c at that one moment x.
Person who knows more will always make choice d at that one moment x.

There is absolutely no more freedom in any given moment.

What we can say about the person who knows more is that their action/reaction stands a better chance of fitting the situation. Since they have a wider variety of responses.

But in any given interaction they have no more choice than someone with less knowledge. They are utterly compelled, if determinism is the case, just like the ones with less knowledge.

It's a bit like two robots. Robot A has a hammer and it has two responses, hit with hammer if a dark object approaches. Don't hit with hammer if a light one approaches.
Robot B has three tools. Dark objects it pokes with a screwdriver. Colored ones it bashes with the hammer. Objects that make sounds it dusts with a rag.

Robot B has more types of reaction, but both robots are utterly determined in their 'choice'.

[popeye1945]

Freedom from WHAT, you are a reactionary creature the same as every other creature on the planet as your fight or flight instincts indicate, your behaviors are forever linked to a changing physical reality you are not in charge!! There is no such thing as human action there is only human reaction again the same as every other organism on the planet. The development of your larger brain has given you a wider range of choice reactions to any given situation, but react you must, that is the nature of your being in the world at all. You are no more important than any other organism on the planet but only in the way of your self-interest, which again is common to all organisms. You are a functional aspect of the larger whole and reaction is the part you play, as your reactions affect/cause reactions in the physical world. Do you wish to call your wider range of choice of reactions to the physical world free will? If so, it is a little, just a little egocentric of a reactionary creature to do so, and a little problematic for the world at large.

[Age]

I have added Age to my foe list in order to avoid seeing his posts. Since some of you have copied and responded to his most recent comments/questions, I would like to invite Age to explore how, in his own words, memory may distinguish humans from, for instance, a billiard table ball. I shall temporarily remove him from my list of foes while I await his conclusions. I am also interested in the responses of others to this issue.

I am confident that a thorough examination of the implications of long-term memory and learning (which are identical at the molecular and cellular level) will yield surprising and eye-opening insights. Unless, of course, one completely rejects the existence of memories.

If you want me to provide you with some thing, then you will need to express that request to me directly. Speaking through "others" to get me to do some thing and not speaking to me directly will get you nothing.

Now, what can be seen here is a GREAT example of just how Truly CLOSED these ones were when they BELIEVED things to be true. "bigmike" actually BELIEVES that its own definition of 'free will' is the only one worthy of being used, and that this also means that a 'deterministic world' exists, ONLY. What then happens is this BELIEF has CLOSED "bigmike" OFF completely, so then 'it' now just PICKS and CHOOSES what 'it' will or will NOT LISTEN as well as when 'it' will or will NOT LISTEN to "others".

In other words this one here is PROVING how from a Truly CLOSED perspective one will CHOOSE when and what they will LOOK AT and LISTEN TO and so also CHOOSE what 'it' SEES and HEARS, as well. Which is a PERFECT example of 'confirmation bias', in the extreme.

[Age]

Why do those 'you' who BELIEVE that there is only a 'deterministic world' also BELIEVE that 'you' can CHOOSE to behave in ways, or are ABLE to CHANGE things, which in turn would make 'this world' a better place?

Determinists believe that such freedom as they have to make this world a better place relates to the individual's reasoning capacity, knowledge, and empathy.
The believer in Free Will believes that their ability to choose is not relative but is absolute, and can overcome stupidity, ignorance, and vanity.

Does everyone who BELIEVES in 'determinism' hold this view/position?

Does everyone who BELIEVES in 'free will' hold this view/position?

Both Free Willists and determinists choose.

you say this like there are actual things as 'free willists' and 'determinists'.

Many animals can actively choose, who have no interest in ontology. Choice is not a synonym for Free Will.

So, what then IS synonym for 'free will'?

[Age]

Why do those 'you' who BELIEVE that there is only a 'deterministic world' also BELIEVE that 'you' can CHOOSE to behave in ways, or are ABLE to CHANGE things, which in turn would make 'this world' a better place?

Consider what it means to make a choice. To choose anything means, at its most fundamental level, to select the most desired option among a number of alternatives. This implies that the alternatives must be able to be ordered transitively from least to most preferred. By transitively, I mean that, given two options, one option is at least as good as the other in one's view; when x is at least as good as y, we say x ≥ y. Transitivity means that if x ≥ y and y ≥ z, then x ≥ z. This permits the ordering to occur. Without this, you wouldn't be able to choose. When you encounter a tie, the objective is changed to break the tie. For example, you could use "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe," flip a coin, or do something else.

The main point is that choosing is like solving an optimization problem within a feasible domain. It's about finding the answer that maximizes one's preferences while still being realistic. You can use different words to describe choice, but in the end, your definition will probably be the same as the one I sketched above. This definition was first made by Nobel laureate John von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern in their excellent book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior." Moreover, comparisons such as "x is at least as good as y" are simple for the brain to do, and consequently, so are choices.

This process results in there always being a single "best" option; the determined one. Clearly, one may ask what "best" means, "in what way is it the best?" But this doesn't change the fact that there is only one best choice in every situation and context, no matter "in what way it is the best." So, your physical brain decides what your body should do, and there is only one option, the one it figures is best based on logic. Of course, your brain might have made a different choice in hindsight, but it didn't have that hindsight at the time. As one acquires more and more hindsight, one's goal selections and subsequent decisions tend to become increasingly well-suited to meeting one's needs, and the needs of those closest to us.

Writing this sort of rubbish does NOT detract from the Fact that you have CHOSEN to NOT answer the ACTUAL question I posed.

Nor does it detract from the Fact that you CHOOSE when 'you' WANT to LISTEN and RESPOND to "others".

If you are going to respond to my questions and writings with MORE rubbish like this here, then I suggest you put me back on your for list, and IGNORE absolutely EVERY thing I say, write, and ask here