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

[BigMike]

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

The difference being: the free willist is inclined to believe he has at least some say-so over outcomes while the determinist believes que sera sera.

I would argue that determinists, of whom I am one, believe that our capacity to recall, learn, and thus project observable patterns that evolve through time gives us at least a partial glimpse into the near future. Not completely que sera, sera.

[Belinda]

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

Well, if determinism is the case, they are both at the mercy of fate or 'the inevitable', no chance involved at all. Though I do get how it may seem like chance from their perspectives.

But nobody ever has or ever can foresee the future, and hence chance is an inevitable experience for all.

Which is why I said (it's right there in what you quoted)

Though I do get how it may seem like chance from their perspectives.

I will now stress that word seem.
My reaction was to you describing it as being at the mercy of chance. Not that they will experience it this way.
And here you do it again....

Whatever befalls a man is due to a combination of chance and choice.

In a deterministic universe whatever befalls a man is due to what must inevitable happen.

Some games such as chess are nearly all choice, and other games such as roulette are nearly all chance. The chess player has to trust causality while the gambler is a fatalist. Fatalism, like predestination, is a subsection of free will.

I don't understand that last sentence.
[/quote]

Oh dear! Please accept my apology. That was a careless mistake on my part and I did not do justice to my point of view, and spoiled the transmission for you. I should have written :



"Fatalism, like predestination, is a subsection of determinism."

While I'm here I'd like to add that fatalism, and predestination, are errors of judgement.The former is founded on apathy or despair, and the latter is based on belief on a punitive God.

[iambiguous]

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.

Click.

Reminds you of Satyr, a bit, right? When he comes upon those who don't agree with his own set of assumptions, his own conclusions...those who actually challenge them instead...he "ignores" them. And, I suspect, if he had Satyr's power at KT here...ban them?

[henry quirk]

What the determinist and the free willist have in common is neither knows what is going to happen. Free willist and determinist are both at the mercy of chance.

The difference being: the free willist is inclined to believe he has at least some say-so over outcomes while the determinist believes que sera sera.

I would argue that determinists, of whom I am one, believe that our capacity to recall, learn, and thus project observable patterns that evolve through time gives us at least a partial glimpse into the near future. Not completely que sera, sera.

You sound like a compatibilist.

[BigMike]

The difference being: the free willist is inclined to believe he has at least some say-so over outcomes while the determinist believes que sera sera.

I would argue that determinists, of whom I am one, believe that our capacity to recall, learn, and thus project observable patterns that evolve through time gives us at least a partial glimpse into the near future. Not completely que sera, sera.

You sound like a compatibilist.

Nope.

[henry quirk]

I would argue that determinists, of whom I am one, believe that our capacity to recall, learn, and thus project observable patterns that evolve through time gives us at least a partial glimpse into the near future. Not completely que sera, sera.

You sound like a compatibilist.

Nope.

I think you do...

The compatibilist believes that he's accountable for some of what he does. The buck is split (35 cents for him, 65 cents for someone or something else).

...so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[BigMike]

...so we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's almost paradoxical. Since you mistake me for a compatibilist or someone who believes in free will, based on my explanation of determinism, I feel you are close to realizing that free will is an illusion. The difficulty you are experiencing likely also explains why the majority of people believe in free will. They clearly do not understand the subtle distinction, and neither do you as of yet.

I have explained a deterministic worldview that most people are unable to distinguish from their own naïve concept of free will. But once they overcome this final intellectual challenge, they will realize that free will is indeed an illusion. The redeeming factor is that humans have long-term memory, which is nothing more than a physical alteration in their brains caused by biophysical processes alone. This appears to be the single most important factor that eventually enables people to see the light.

[henry quirk]

You speak as a compatibilist but claim to be a determinist. I think you're close to realizing you're a free will.

[popeye1945]

You speak as a compatibilist but claim to be a determinist. I think you are close to realizing you are a free will.

Henry,

Can you accept the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures in that they do not ACT but only react? That being reactive creatures is a necessity to evolutionary adaptation? That the bases of all human diseases is a reactionary process. The one thing one cannot do is it cannot, not react to the physical world, for the physical world is to all reactive creatures, cause.

[henry quirk]

Can you accept the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures in that they do not ACT but only react?

I know, as fact: man, every man, any man, is a free will. He acts.

And you know it too.

[BigMike]

You speak as a compatibilist but claim to be a determinist. I think you're close to realizing you're a free will.

Do you believe evolution could ever occur if people had free will? Do you have any concept how catastrophic it would be for the evolution of species if free will could somehow thwart the natural selection-based process of evolution? If free will existed, you wouldn't be here.

[Belinda]

You speak as a compatibilist but claim to be a determinist. I think you're close to realizing you're a free will.

Henry, excluding Free Will, can you look for all the reasons for why you made some specific decision ?

[popeye1945]

Can you accept the fact that all organisms are reactive creatures in that they do not ACT but only react?

I know, as fact: man, every man, any man, is a free will. He acts.

And you know it too.

Henry,
Then give me one example where behavior could not possibly be termed a reaction, two would be nice but I'll settle for one.---lol!!

[Sculptor]

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity. SO prisons cannot be about reform, they can only be holding pens.
This is one reason why the US, a country obsessed with Free will, has the world's largest prison populations. and are more or less cages to incarcerate.

By contrast the Scandinavian model which is more about rehab, has some of the lowest repeat offenses

[Belinda]

People who believe in radical free will are usually more right wing. They show a complete lack of understanding for mitigating circumstances, and regard prison as a holding pen for willfully recidivistic criminals, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate and make corrections to behaviour for the benefit of society. THe implication of free will is that no matter the cause, not matter the experience a person has absolute free will to commit crimes by pure choice uninfluenced by deterrence, or necessity. SO prisons cannot be about reform, they can only be holding pens.
This is one reason why the US, a country obsessed with Free will, has the world's largest prison populations. and are more or less cages to incarcerate.

By contrast the Scandinavian model which is more about rehab, has some of the lowest repeat offenses

The term "radical free will" may help some Americans to understand. What I don't understand is that while the US has great universities and some of the most intelligent individuals, the US population as a whole is so ignorant about the "radical" nature of free will, and ordinary people lack insight into their own biases.
I have read one explanation of the historical cause that affects only Americans.

The bold or desperate people who colonised the American west did so after the east coast had become settled and developed. The new generation of colonists who moved west resented controls and debts owed to the people in the developed parts who had partly financed the colonists. The eastern states have remained more intellectually developed and traditional resentment towards intellectualism persists among mid US states.