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

[iambiguous]

Again, from my frame of mind, you speak of this as though in regard to the future, the laws of matter "somehow" provide the human brain with the capacity to either choose be wise or to be unwise. Just as the libertarians will argue about the present and the past as well.

Let me put it this way: if you have unfulfilled needs, you will suffer pain or discomfort. This is communicated by the sensory nerve system or hormones secreted by glands into the bloodstream. If your needs are not met, you may become physically or mentally ill, or even die. Biology has evolved to encourage survival and the propagation of your genes. Individuals that do not survive and reproduce are really a dead end: a waste of time, space, and precious energy. They provide no contribution and are hence biological failures in the grand scheme of things.

Particularly, the brain has evolved the capacity for short- and long-term memory, as well as learning, so that its owner can be at or near the front of the pack and be the most fitted for survival. When the body responds to physical or emotional pain in a way that alleviates the pain, the brain strengthens the synapses involved by developing new axon terminals to improve neurotransmitter transmission, making it more likely to repeat that response the next time. This is how learning occurs; by the development of new axon terminals. It enhances a person's response to any scenario.

Your brain is programmed and conditioned to accomplish what it calculates best for you, and it does so by learning how to meet your physical and emotional requirements (see Maslow's hierarchy of needs), so ensuring the least amount of pain and the greatest amount of happiness and contentment. Additionally, the learning tells you what results to anticipate from particular behaviors. Naturally, ignorance in a certain field may end in the opposite: maybe more misery and anguish, or at best, becoming a victim of chance. Learning is the window into the future, and in your words, how “the laws of matter "somehow" provide the human brain with the capacity to either choose be wise or to be unwise.”

There you go again...

"Let me put it to you this way..."

As though you had the option to put it to me another way...but chose this way. Just as the libertarians would put it. You note all of the chemical/neurological/biological imperatives unfolding in our brains when we "choose" one thing and not another thing. But "somehow" in posting all of this it reflects wisdom on your part and not ignorance or stupidity. Only when others refuse to think exactly as you do here are they "somehow" being ignorant or stupid.

Again, put just as the free will folks would note it.

Then from my frame of mind [compelled or not] just more of the same...

How exactly does that work...chemically, neurologically? Link us to the neuroscientists who in turn have arrived at this conclusion about the human brain grappling with the future.

I recommend Nobel prize winner Eric R. Kandel's In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. You can get it here: https://www.amazon.com/Search-Memory-Em ... 8&qid=&sr=

Those who embrace free will, when asked that, will reflect on all of the options they have at their disposal in providing me with the best book/article/internet link/youtube video, etc., to answer my question.

Then I, of my own volition, will opt to read the publication or view the video.

But as a "free will determinist", you always seem to have access to the best of both worlds.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't disagree with that.

Great.

I don't think that there is any sort of problem with what is happening.

I'm not saying you should have one. Sometimes people say things - and this is a very hard thing to talk about without being misleading potentially at least - and I check in or suggest better wording or test the meaning of certain words. But I have no case to make that someone should be depressed about determinism being true if it is. I do understand someone reacting negatively or even finding it horrifying, but I don't think there is a correct emotional reaction.

This is the part that you're probably not going to like:

Given that I don't know what free will is exactly I have no way to determine if your deduction is correct. I don't dislike it or like it. I don't know if it holds or doesn't.

[BigMike]

They think that things outside themselves make them act the way they do. Those external things include all other people. They see themselves as part of an extensive social network where each person affects everyone else, like through six degrees of separation. Yet, none of them are the cause of their own actions. The transition from this to democratic sentiments appears to be a small step. I believe this drives determinists to be more accepting of social rules than believers in free will, on average.

It is not just nature and experience that lead to our actions, thoughts, feelings, attitudes. We also have our natures.

I don’t understand what you mean here: “It is not just nature […] that lead to our actions[…]. We also have our natures.”

since most people think free will means being able to overcome external influences, not having to merely give in to them, and most people are not thinking or taking a real stand on a kind of causeless action, we don't really know who believes in free will as is meant as something contrasted with determinism.

Does it matter whether we know or don’t know “who believes in free will as is meant as something contrasted with determinism”? I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

Determinists would certainly believe that a Nelson Mandela or whoever can overcome and resist outside influences and causes.

Yes, but only if Mandela or whoever acts on the decisions made by their physical brains and surroundings. No one, including Nelson Mandela, could behave independently of their physical constitution and external influences.

[popeye1945]

Iwannaplato,

Yes, in a sense we are all the center of our own universe, which could be termed egocentric, but it is necessitated by the survival instinct, it being a necessity for moving and reacting in the world. We are however reactionary creatures just like every other organism on the planet, argue against that if you like. Free will infers control that humanity takes action, there is however no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction, humanity is not in control, not even in control of it's reactions. By the state of the planet presently, humanity cannot even gear its reactions when the consequences of its former reactions are reflected by to it, thus we have a dying planet.

Which, if you are right, was 'ordained' in the Big Bang or before that. The egocentricity of people believing in free will isn't causing the end of the planet. That was determined billions of years ago. I understand that in a deterministic universe you are just, according to your explanation here, merely reacting negatively to those people and this was also determined (that you would do this) billions of years ago. I just find it ironic.

Iwannaplato,

Determinism does not state that there are no choices to one's reactions. One thing is certain one cannot, not react to the physical world, for all organisms are reactionary creatures and to reactionary creatures the physical world is cause. If the past attitudes towards nature were the cause of the violation of nature, then surely that which is being reflected back at humanity namely climate change, it would be reasonable to change one's attitude and thus one's reactions to nature. One can not always know what motivates a reaction, but you would be wise if in trying to understand your fellow man that you ask yourself, what is he reacting to?

[Iwannaplato]

I don’t understand what you mean here: “It is not just nature […] that lead to our actions[…]. We also have our natures.”

Sorry, yes. I meant to contrast nature and nurture and got lost in my n-s. It's not just external causes, we aren't tabula rasas.

Does it matter whether we know or don’t know “who believes in free will as is meant as something contrasted with determinism”? I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

I mean that it's very speculative to sit around deducing what the effects of a belief are. A better approach, it seems to me, would be to do sociological research. Check the crime statistics of people who believe in each. But an immediate huge problem is that most people define free will in a way that is not at all incompatible with determinism.

Yes, but only if Mandela or whoever acts on the decisions made by their physical brains and surroundings. No one, including Nelson Mandela, could behave independently of their physical constitution and external influences.

Which is precisely what I meant. Most people (and I provided links to research in my first response in this thread) think of free will in a way that does not contradict determinism. They are not thinking of it in the kinds of ontological ways philosophers do. They mean that someone can fight external power and authority. One can struggle against adversity. That's not incompatible with determinism.

So, I think we are left with an extremely speculative set of deductions. One can make a case that it will increase one's rule-breaking and one can make a case that it will reduce it. And we have no good means of determining which, if any, is correct.

[Iwannaplato]

Determinism does not state that there are no choices to one's reactions.

I don't know what that sentence means.

One thing is certain one cannot, not react to the physical world, for all organisms are reactionary creatures and to reactionary creatures the physical world is cause. If the past attitudes towards nature were the cause of the violation of nature, then surely that which is being reflected back at humanity namely climate change, it would be reasonable to change one's attitude and thus one's reactions to nature. One can not always know what motivates a reaction, but you would be wise if in trying to understand your fellow man that you ask yourself, what is he reacting to?

And all this, one's being reasonable or not being reasonable one's theories about other minds (correct, mixed, incorrect), these would all have been determined in the Big Bang. I am not even sure, in the end, that a word like 'reasonable' has much meaning if my next 7,809 conclusions or even lines of thought were already determined in the Big Bang: It's like attributing reason to dominoes falling in a path made billions of years ago. Stuff happens.

[phyllo]

I am not even sure, in the end, that a word like 'reasonable' has much meaning if my next 7,809 conclusions or even lines of thought were already determined in the Big Bang: It's like attributing reason to dominoes falling in a path made billions of years ago. Stuff happens.

It sounds like you have been sucked into the Biggus vortex.

Which contains the idea that in a determined universe, 'reason', 'rational', 'meaning', 'truth', 'definitions of words', 'relevancy', 'demonstrations', 'off-topic', do not exist.

[Iwannaplato]

I am not even sure, in the end, that a word like 'reasonable' has much meaning if my next 7,809 conclusions or even lines of thought were already determined in the Big Bang: It's like attributing reason to dominoes falling in a path made billions of years ago. Stuff happens.

It sounds like you have been sucked into the Biggus vortex.

Which contains the idea that in a determined universe, 'reason', 'rational', 'meaning', 'truth', 'definitions of words', 'relevancy', 'demonstrations', 'off-topic', do not exist.

They exist. But I think some of the connotations and implicit meanings are gone.

And by the way, that's not really a rational response to what I wrote. A reasoned or rational response would critique or agree with or add nuance to something I wrote.

What you basically did was say X believes that also, with some implicit insult or guilt by association or some other fallacious argument implied, though not stated. I mean, sure. Hitler and I both like(d) dogs. Great, I probably won't try to liquidate a race, so who cares.

I am not sure what his position is. He generally does not quite respond to the posts I made. What he does, it seems to me, is find a way to use it as an excuse to repeat something not really related to what I wrote. I don't know if I agree with his position or not.

[phyllo]

And by the way, that's not really a rational response to what I wrote.

Do I claim to be rational?

A reasoned or rational response would critique or agree with or add nuance to something I wrote.

I could never have not posted as I did.

No. I would not use that excuse.

What you basically did was say X believes that also, with some implicit insult or guilt by association or some other fallacious argument implied, though not stated.

I find it interesting and odd, that you sometimes have the same ideas as Biggus and you critique those very ideas at other times when replying to him.

Are those your original ideas or is he slowly converting you?

He seems to converted some posters to his 'dasein shtick'.

I am not sure what his position is. He generally does not quite respond to the posts I made. What he does, it seems to me, is find a way to use it as an excuse to repeat something not really related to what I wrote. I don't know if I agree with his position or not.

I pulled the 'relevancy', 'demonstrations', 'definitions' and 'off-topic' directly from one of his replies to you. I don't think you replied to that post.

This one:

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?

[BigMike]

I don’t understand what you mean here: “It is not just nature […] that lead to our actions[…]. We also have our natures.”

Sorry, yes. I meant to contrast nature and nurture and got lost in my n-s. It's not just external causes, we aren't tabula rasas.

I still don't know which "n" means "nature" and which one means "nurture." But it doesn't matter, unless I'm missing something, because both are outside sources of influence, just like the extensive social network I mentioned, which made you comment in the first place. I still don’t get your point.

I mean that it's very speculative to sit around deducing what the effects of a belief are. A better approach, it seems to me, would be to do sociological research. Check the crime statistics of people who believe in each.

I second that. I am in favor of more research on these topics. I would have liked to see a multidisciplinary group of scientists in sociology, criminology, neurology, physics, and philosophy get together and answer some of these questions.

But an immediate huge problem is that most people define free will in a way that is not at all incompatible with determinism.

According to William James, an American philosopher, historian, and psychologist, compatibilists, when arguing for their point of view, have made "a quagmire of evasion." And Immanuel Kant, a prominent German philosopher who lived during the Age of Enlightenment, says their explanation is a "wretched subterfuge" that some people still fall for, thinking they've solved a centuries-old problem with "petty word juggling." And Wallace Matson, an American philosopher, and professor, described it as "the most flabbergasting instance of the fallacy of changing the subject to be encountered anywhere in the complete history of sophistry… [a ploy that] was intended to take in the vulgar, but which has beguiled the learned in our time." If this is the type of free will definition you're referring to, then a group of scientists would surely immediately reject it.

[Iwannaplato]

Do I claim to be rational?

I don't know and that's a non-response.

A reasoned or rational response would critique or agree with or add nuance to something I wrote.

I could never have not posted as I did.

No. I would not use that excuse.

So, another non-response.

What you basically did was say X believes that also, with some implicit insult or guilt by association or some other fallacious argument implied, though not stated.

I find it interesting and odd, that you sometimes have the same ideas as Biggus and you critique those very ideas at other times when replying to him.

Great. And perhaps something to include in a response to my post, but you decided not to engage with any of the ideas in my post. OK, good to know, and you continue it here.

Are those your original ideas or is he slowly converting you?

I dunno, do you get blow jobs from his sister? Oh, wait, another non-response.

He seems to converted some posters to his 'dasein shtick'.

Could be. I don't care.

I am not sure what his position is. He generally does not quite respond to the posts I made. What he does, it seems to me, is find a way to use it as an excuse to repeat something not really related to what I wrote. I don't know if I agree with his position or not.

I pulled the 'relevancy', 'demonstrations', 'definitions' and 'off-topic' directly from one of his replies to you. I don't think you replied to that post.

So, instead of responding to the points in my post you post the posts of someone else. I understand you may not realize I won't ever engage with him again, but regardless, nothing here.

I'll ignore you also. You're like some kind of anti-groupie of his. You'd rather quote him than respond to any points I made.

Maybe this is facile avoidance on your part. Like it's a way to avoid actually making a cohesive response, critical or otherwise. But I don't know.

Enjoy whatever it is you're trying to do here. There are a few people in this forum who do respond to points made and neither you nor Iambiguous seem to be among them.

[phyllo]

Do I claim to be rational?

I don't know and that's a non-response.

A reasoned or rational response would critique or agree with or add nuance to something I wrote.

I could never have not posted as I did.

No. I would not use that excuse.

So, another non-response.

What you basically did was say X believes that also, with some implicit insult or guilt by association or some other fallacious argument implied, though not stated.

I find it interesting and odd, that you sometimes have the same ideas as Biggus and you critique those very ideas at other times when replying to him.

Great. And perhaps something to include in a response to my post, but you decided not to engage with any of the ideas in my post. OK, good to know, and you continue it here.

Are those your original ideas or is he slowly converting you?

I dunno, do you get blow jobs from his sister? Oh, wait, another non-response.

He seems to converted some posters to his 'dasein shtick'.

Could be. I don't care.

I am not sure what his position is. He generally does not quite respond to the posts I made. What he does, it seems to me, is find a way to use it as an excuse to repeat something not really related to what I wrote. I don't know if I agree with his position or not.

I pulled the 'relevancy', 'demonstrations', 'definitions' and 'off-topic' directly from one of his replies to you. I don't think you replied to that post.

So, instead of responding to the points in my post you post the posts of someone else. I understand you may not realize I won't ever engage with him again, but regardless, nothing here.

I'll ignore you also. You're like some kind of anti-groupie of his. You'd rather quote him than respond to any points I made.

Maybe this is facile avoidance on your part. Like it's a way to avoid actually making a cohesive response, critical or otherwise. But I don't know.

Enjoy whatever it is you're trying to do here. There are a few people in this forum who do respond to points made and neither you nor Iambiguous seem to be among them.

I sent him 'over the top' again.

Let me say this in closing ...

This isn't my job or my 'passion'. I'm not necessarily going to invest lots of time and effort to craft a reasoned and rational post.

Especially since often people don't respond to my reasoned and rational posts.

I tried to engage Biggus in dialog many times ... unsuccessfully. I'm not his anti-groupie nor do I hate him or fear him or other silly nonsense.
At this point, I'm only curious if anything can budge him.

At least "I dunno, do you get blow jobs from his sister?" isn't some homo stuff involving butt-fucking in the Harry Baird style. That said ... The forum seems to produce these kinds of nasty remarks.

[Age]

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.

In a deterministic universe someone's egocentricity and the world at large's problems are inevitable and your fight and judgment reactions to someone using the phrase 'free will' are then, well, just reactions and egocentric.

Iwannaplato,

Yes, in a sense we are all the center of our own universe, which could be termed egocentric, but it is necessitated by the survival instinct, it being a necessity for moving and reacting in the world. We are however reactionary creatures just like every other organism on the planet, argue against that if you like. Free will infers control that humanity takes action, there is however no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction, humanity is not in control, not even in control of it's reactions. By the state of the planet presently, humanity cannot even gear its reactions when the consequences of its former reactions are reflected by to it, thus we have a dying planet.

Are you here suggesting that 'you', "popeye1945",, are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of doing absolutely ANY thing to just CHANGE 'your' Wrong and abusive ways for a BETTER way, which sometimes also known as just 'taking action'?

[BigMike]

This topic opened by asking four questions. Here I will give my response to the second one:
2. Do determinists care more about the welfare of their fellow citizens?

Determinists look at people's surroundings to determine why they act the way they do. Libertarians look at people's "character" to determine why they do what they do. Libertarians blame the person, while determinists place the blame on the environment. As I previously mentioned in my response to question #1, the two camps have ideas that are entirely opposed to one another.

Let me comment on a specific challenge related to the deterministic view that many people either fail to consider or deliberately fail to want to discuss. It's when someone does something wrong even though they know it's wrong and still decide to do it. Why shouldn't they be held responsible?

People act based on what they think is in their own best interests. People think about how likely they are to get caught and what their likely punishment will be if they are caught before they do something wrong. A determinist will probably look at the offender's external settings, especially how society reacts to crime, and think about whether or not it is necessary to make it more likely to catch criminals or make the punishments harsher. Or whether other corrective actions or procedures should be undertaken.

When a society's attitude toward law enforcement is overly permissive, and its punishments are too lenient, it frequently implicitly encourages criminal action by skewing the cost-benefit equation in favor of mischief.

Or, when a society's social welfare institutions aren't functioning properly, and people are starving and living on the streets, society itself is again complicit in indirectly incentivizing criminal behavior. Possibly, to improve the situation, new policies should be enacted.

In other instances, training in social skills and other educational programs may be explored. This is by no means an exhaustive list of possible responses; rather, the point is that the cause and, thus, the solution lay in the offender's environment, not in his character, which is a product of his environment.

Most people who believe in free will think that punishment is the answer to crime, even though it hasn't worked for hundreds of years. For instance, the United States Supreme Court has stated plainly that "a deterministic view of human conduct ... is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system." "Belief in freedom of the human will" is a "universal and persistent" part of our legal system, says the Supreme Court.

[Age]

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 12, 2022 8:21 pm
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.

Unless, of course, someone here wants to CLAIM that in 'determinism/deterministic only world' 'people' ACTUALLY do have the ability to make CHOICES. And, if ANY one here wants to CLAIM this, then SPEAK UP now.

'Determinism/deterministic only world' 'people' have the ability to make choices and they do make choices. They use their brains to think about the situation and then they select what they think is the best option.

They do exactly what free-willers do.

The only difference is that determinism people' realize that the choices and decision does not spring out of nothing. They realize that what is happening has a history which is unavoidable.

And what is completely UNAVOIDABLE in an imagined 'deterministic ONLY world' is that whatever, supposed, 'choice' one makes is thee One and ONLY POSSIBLE one that could be made.

So, in 'that world' there is NO actual 'choice' being made.
There is, instead, just an APPEARANCE and ILLUSION of 'choices' being available.

And from this 'determinism people' can potentially recognize who or what is pushing the choices and decisions ... people, governments, corporations ... events from their childhood ... current events as reported in media. Recognition is the first step to understanding and choosing how to respond to it.

Here we have AGAIN human beings thinking or BELIEVING that there are actual 'sides' here, and then 'TRYING' their hardest to CLAIM that ONLY "their side" is the one ABLE to make and CHOOSE the 'right' decisions.

Which WAS more ABSURD and RIDICULOUS to OBSERVE and WATCH play out in 'real time', then it IS looking back at just how STUPID and RIDICULOUS adult human beings REALLY WERE, back in the days when this WAS being written.