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

[popeye1945]

Accept the definition is faulty in my opinion, and you're quite free to challenge it. That is, all organisms are reactive creatures which means there is no such thing as human action, there is only human reaction. Think about it, one cannot move without, without being moved within first, motivation necessarily spells reaction. The fact that all organisms are reactive creatures is what makes evolutionary adaptation possible. Also, all diseases are necessarily reactionary processes. There is in the world cause and effect, with the effect being reactionary consciousness. The world is cause for all organisms and the reactions of the organism are cause in the physical world. Accept this, and there is no room for the free will argument. One is motivated by the world to affect change or alterations to one's reaction by putting one's will behind the reaction as intention. Free will is an egocentric delusion, we can be cause to the physical world but only through our intended/motivated reaction/s. Organisms cause/effect changes in the environment which reflect back to the organisms the need for adaptations to incremental changes over the eons with the changes in the environment there then are changes is the structures and forms of organisms and necessarily changing the nature of the reactions of organisms. Humanity with its concept of free will can only do harm to itself, by not recognizing the interplay of cause and effect/reaction which is playing out today in the form of environmental degradation.

[BigMike]

Accept the definition is faulty in my opinion, and you're quite free to challenge it. That is, all organisms are reactive creatures which means there is no such thing as human action, there is only human reaction. Think about it, one cannot move without, without being moved within first, motivation necessarily spells reaction. The fact that all organisms are reactive creatures is what makes evolutionary adaptation possible. Also, all diseases are necessarily reactionary processes. There is in the world cause and effect, with the effect being reactionary consciousness. The world is cause for all organisms and the reactions of the organism are cause in the physical world. Accept this, and there is no room for the free will argument. One is motivated by the world to affect change or alterations to one's reaction by putting one's will behind the reaction as intention. Free will is an egocentric delusion, we can be cause to the physical world but only through our intended/motivated reaction/s. Organisms cause/effect changes in the environment which reflect back to the organisms the need for adaptations to incremental changes over the eons with the changes in the environment there then are changes is the structures and forms of organisms and necessarily changing the nature of the reactions of organisms. Humanity with its concept of free will can only do harm to itself, by not recognizing the interplay of cause and effect/reaction which is playing out today in the form of environmental degradation.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that Britannica's definition is "faulty" from your comments here. How would you alter it if you had the choice?

[popeye1945]

Accept the definition is faulty in my opinion, and you're quite free to challenge it. That is, all organisms are reactive creatures which means there is no such thing as human action, there is only human reaction. Think about it, one cannot move without, without being moved within first, motivation necessarily spells reaction. The fact that all organisms are reactive creatures is what makes evolutionary adaptation possible. Also, all diseases are necessarily reactionary processes. There is in the world cause and effect, with the effect being reactionary consciousness. The world is cause for all organisms and the reactions of the organism are cause in the physical world. Accept this, and there is no room for the free will argument. One is motivated by the world to affect change or alterations to one's reaction by putting one's will behind the reaction as intention. Free will is an egocentric delusion, we can be cause to the physical world but only through our intended/motivated reaction/s. Organisms cause/effect changes in the environment which reflect back to the organisms the need for adaptations to incremental changes over the eons with the changes in the environment there then are changes is the structures and forms of organisms and necessarily changing the nature of the reactions of organisms. Humanity with its concept of free will can only do harm to itself, by not recognizing the interplay of cause and effect/reaction which is playing out today in the form of environmental degradation.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that Britannica's definition is "faulty" from your comments here. How would you alter it if you had the choice?

BigMike,

Simply the use of the term action rather than reaction makes all the difference in the world, it gives humanity the idea that they are in control while they are simply a functional aspect of the whole. They are not in this world, they are of this world and it seems to me a saner approach.

[BigMike]

BigMike,

Simply the use of the term action rather than reaction makes all the difference in the world, it gives humanity the idea that they are in control while they are simply a functional aspect of the whole. They are not in this world, they are of this world and it seems to me a saner approach.

To me, the ability to "perform reactions independently of any prior event or state of the universe" would be contradictory. What do you think?

[iambiguous]

Yo, BigMike! You're up!!!

And your question is...?

Click.

No, seriously.

I am truly baffled by how you construe determinism.

Back to these questions:

But I recently read a description of a four-step refutation model. So, here is a short summary for anyone who might be interested...

Isn't this how the libertarians would pose it? BigMike of his own volition recently read a description of a refutation model. Now he's asking you if, of your own volition, you are interested in it.

So, what do I keep missing here?

[BigMike]

So, what do I keep missing here?

Haven't got a clue.

[iambiguous]

Some people seem to think that this forum is like a weird reality show whose main goal is to stir up rivalries and intrigues for entertainment. And maybe it is.

But I recently read a description of a four-step refutation model. So, here is a short summary for anyone who might be interested:

Step 1: "You say..."

• Directly refer to the argument
• Rephrase the argument
• State point quickly and clearly

Step 2: "But I disagree…"

• State your counter-argument
• Can be the opposite of the opponent's claim
• Can attack reasoning/evidence of opponent

Step 3: "Because…"

• Offer reasoning evidence to enforce your counter-argument
• Can be independent support
• Can be reasoned criticism

Step 4: "Therefore..."

• Compare your refutation to the opponent's argument
• Show that your argument is better

Arguments here are nothing but babble since no two people are in agreement on the meaning of the two words : determinism and free-will.

My point then being that, in a free will world, there are those "serious philosophers" among us who make the babble go away by exchanging "general description intellectual contraptions". "Worlds of words" in which determinism and free will are defined into existence...analytically. Technically. What is logical in discussing the 4 steps above? What -- ontologically? teleologically? -- can we know definitively in describing them to each other?

Whereas from my frame of mind the truly fascinating question revolves more around grappling with how these exchanges themselves can be understood given what we don't know about 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.

Also, the 4 steps as they pertain to actual existential contexts like Mary aborting Jane.

Mary says that aborting Jane was moral. How would one go about refuting that step by step. Even if all we can do is to assume that we possess free will.

[iambiguous]

So, what do I keep missing here?

Haven't got a clue.

Note to Immanual Can:

Absolutely shameless, isn't it?

[BigMike]

I am truly baffled by how you construe determinism.

I answered that question about two months ago.

Determinism is an old idea that no longer makes sense. The old literal view of determinism was stabbed in the heart by Heisenberg. But the conservation laws still stand in a modern language (even conservation of energy, which for a few years was in serious doubt). Even in a quantum mechanical world with all its uncertainties and things coming into and going out of existence, this new definition of determinism is true: things must follow the physical laws of conservation (of energy, momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, etc.), which, by the way, are the basis of all physical laws.

[popeye1945]

BigMike,

Simply the use of the term action rather than reaction makes all the difference in the world, it gives humanity the idea that they are in control while they are simply a functional aspect of the whole. They are not in this world, they are of this world and it seems to me a saner approach.

To me, the ability to "perform reactions independently of any prior event or state of the universe" would be contradictory. What do you think?

Yes to the point, one may have a choice between reactions to one's environment but one cannot, not react to one's environment. As a functional part of a changing condition, the organism must remain plastic/malleable where essential changes to conditions occur below the conscious level.

[BigMike]

BigMike,

Simply the use of the term action rather than reaction makes all the difference in the world, it gives humanity the idea that they are in control while they are simply a functional aspect of the whole. They are not in this world, they are of this world and it seems to me a saner approach.

To me, the ability to "perform reactions independently of any prior event or state of the universe" would be contradictory. What do you think?

Yes to the point, one may have a choice between reactions to one's environment but one cannot, not react to one's environment. As a functional part of a changing condition, the organism must remain plastic/malleable where essential changes to conditions occur below the conscious level.

Maybe you're trying too hard to fit your conclusion into the definition of free will. I don't think many people will adopt a definition that so clearly goes against the idea of free will. But to be fair to you, your definition of free will shows that this kind of free will can't exist, whether you believe in determinism or not.

Unfortunately, I don't think many people care much about that particular kind of free will. They are arguing for or against something that is very different, I think.

[Belinda]

With reference to Heisenberg disproving determinism, here is an excerpt from an article in the New York Times.

From 1925 to 1927, quantum mechanics moved from challenging the contents of classical physics to undermining its deepest foundations. It was during those intense years that Werner Heisenberg proposed his uncertainty principle, which posited that the location and momentum of particles could not both be known with certainty at the same time. Almost simultaneously Erwin Schrödinger proposed his psi function, which describes the probability that a particle will be found in a given location in terms of a wave, which in turn led Bohr to formulate his complementarity principle: An object can be a wave or a particle depending on how it is measured.

"how it is measured" is passive voice. What is it that actively measures? What actively measures is experience. We can experience like Democritus and we can experience like Heraclitus. In both cases the common denominator is experience. Experiencers, living entities, we create our world. Absolute idealism is the theory of existence that explains our world. In order to make a moral world and a controllable world we need to posit that effects follow causes.

[iambiguous]

I am truly baffled by how you construe determinism.

I answered that question about two months ago.

Two months ago in the past. Here today in the present. Two months from now in the future. Some determinists, however, argue that if the human brain is no less matter inherently embedded in the laws that govern all matter, then every answer that we give from the cradle to the grave we give only and solely because we were never able to not give it.

Then the part where our reaction to that is hopelessly entangled in what we still don't know about 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.

So, if Mary aborted Jane two months ago, aborts her today or aborts her two months down the road, Jane was/is/will be aborted.

Period.

Instead, in my view, compelled by your brain or not, you soar up into the intellectual contraption clouds:

Determinism is an old idea that no longer makes sense. The old literal view of determinism was stabbed in the heart by Heisenberg. But the conservation laws still stand in a modern language (even conservation of energy, which for a few years was in serious doubt). Even in a quantum mechanical world with all its uncertainties and things coming into and going out of existence, this new definition of determinism is true: things must follow the physical laws of conservation (of energy, momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, etc.), which, by the way, are the basis of all physical laws.

A "new definition". As though any definition is not the product of human brain matter wholly embedded in the immutable laws that govern all matter.

Only, as we all know, human brain matter is unlike any other matter that there ever was. Indeed, only the brain matter of God Himself is more mind-boggling the flocks of bleating sheep here will insist.

[BigMike]

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.

So, if Mary aborted Jane two months ago, aborts her today or aborts her two months down the road, Jane was/is/will be aborted.

You keep saying over and over again that favorite quotation of yours : "All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain..." and so on. When you say "All of this", which "this" are you referring to? Is it related to free will? Or determinism? Or are you just flabbergasted about something you don't understand?
Then of course there is the Mary/Jane fictional story of yours. I have asked you what the big deal is? I really don't get it.

Instead, in my view, compelled by your brain or not, you soar up into the intellectual contraption clouds:

Determinism is an old idea that no longer makes sense. The old literal view of determinism was stabbed in the heart by Heisenberg. But the conservation laws still stand in a modern language (even conservation of energy, which for a few years was in serious doubt). Even in a quantum mechanical world with all its uncertainties and things coming into and going out of existence, this new definition of determinism is true: things must follow the physical laws of conservation (of energy, momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, etc.), which, by the way, are the basis of all physical laws.

I just wanted to make it clear how my definition of determinism is different from what Leucippus said 2500 years ago. When quantum mechanics was discovered, the definition of determinism had to be revised, as I explained in the quotation above. Consider looking up the parts you don't understand if this is too complicated for you.

Only, as we all know, human brain matter is unlike any other matter that there ever was. Indeed, only the brain matter of God Himself is more mind-boggling the flocks of bleating sheep here will insist.

That claim is false. Normal matter makes up the brain; there is nothing supernatural about it.

[henry quirk]

The newborn infant is evidence man is not a free will. The deep sleeper is evidence man is not a free will.

Nope. A newborn is is incapable of sophisticated thinkin', is incapable of sexual congress: is this evidence sophisticated thinkin or sexual congress are fictions? The deep sleeper is asleep, not brain dead. His mind is turned inward, not turned off.

You have just said there are causes that the newborn infant, and the sleeping man, are not free wills. The causes you say are " incapable of sophisticated thinkin', is incapable of sexual congress:" . These are indeed facts, as is that the sleeper's mind is turned inwards.

If these facts necessary and sufficient to separate free wills from not free wills, then there is no difference between these facts and free will. Your claim is a tautology. And there is no need to add free will to the facts. Because you have said in effect to be incapable of sophisticated thinkin', of sexual congress, and of outward-turned mind is the same as saying free will.