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

[Age]

But if ANY one wants to PROVIDE ANY other definition for 'us' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, then I am MORE than WILLING to, and to CHANGE.

This one works for me: Britannica defines free will as "the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will) However, there are numerous other equivalent definitions available.

1. Considering the Fact that ALL human decisions come from within human bodies, and that ALL human bodies are made of physical matter, which obviously came from prior events or state of the Universe, claiming the power or capacity to make decisions or perform actions or reactions independently of absolutely ANY prior event or state of the Universe is obviously just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS in the extreme.

2. The word 'supposed' indicates that the rest of that definition is still up for consideration.

Now, considering that there could NEVER be a decision made nor any action nor reaction performed by a human body independent of a prior event or state of the Universe the, supposed, power or capacity could have NEVER been an actual thing to begin with. Therefore, the term 'free will' will have to refer to some thing else. Or, one could keep 'that definition' and just be satisfied that 'that definition' could NEVER even exist in Reality anyway.

[Age]

When my robotic vacuum cleaner, a Roomba, encounters a wall, it will sometimes turn to the left and sometimes to the right. According to your definition, it possesses free will.

NO it does NOT, AT ALL.

If this is the case, then it is abundantly clear that I have a misunderstanding of what you mean when you say "the ability, within, to make choices". Could you please elaborate on that for me?

A robotic vacuum cleaner is NOT able to MAKE 'choices'. It is only able to do what it has been programmed to do. For example your robotic vacuum cleaner can only react by following the pre-programmed IF (this happens), THEN (do this). Whereas, with 'you', human beings, IF (this happens), THEN (you can CHOOSE to do or NOT do absolutely ANY thing). Although the amount of your CHOICES are limited by your past experiences.

[Age]

I think it would be helpful to include something that differentiates "will" and "free will".

Did your definition do this?

Yes, it is free because it is "independently of any prior event or state of the universe". Obviously, it would not be free without this clause.

It is a complete and utter IMPOSSIBILITY for absolutely ANY thing to be independent of ANY prior event or state of the Universe. Thinking there could be is just STUPID and FOOLISH.

Saying, " 'it' is free because ..." does NOT inform us of what the 'something' is, exactly.

Now, what is 'will', first, and what is an ACTUAL 'something' that could differentiates between 'will' AND 'free will'.

[BigMike]

But if ANY one wants to PROVIDE ANY other definition for 'us' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, then I am MORE than WILLING to, and to CHANGE.

This one works for me: Britannica defines free will as "the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will) However, there are numerous other equivalent definitions available.

1. Considering the Fact that ALL human decisions come from within human bodies, and that ALL human bodies are made of physical matter, which obviously came from prior events or state of the Universe, claiming the power or capacity to make decisions or perform actions or reactions independently of absolutely ANY prior event or state of the Universe is obviously just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS in the extreme.

Well, you just said what I and other people who believe in determinism have always said. But according to the compatibilists, people are more than just their bodies. Some of them think that we also have a spirit-like part that can act as a "unmoved first mover" to start things. They call it "mind-body dualism".

2. The word 'supposed' indicates that the rest of that definition is still up for consideration.

It is the "power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any previous event or state of the universe" that is contested, not the definition itself.

[Age]

Are you implying that, for instance, if you make a choice, you make that choice "because of past events"?

In A sense. But NOT in the ABSOLUTE sense that you WANT to refer to.

Not because I "WANT to refer to" it that way. I rely solely on your own definitions. Is there a problem with your definitions?

No, not from my perspective anyway. Do you see or have a problem with my definition?

If yes, then how and why, exactly?

How then do you imply that which I asked you, if "NOT in the ABSOLUTE sense"?

When you say, "How then", here, were you ALREADY PRESUMING what my answer would be?

I implied, what I implied, very easily and very simply, and in the sense that, of course, and absolutely, EVERY thing is be-cause of previous or past events, BUT DECISIONS or CHOICES are ALSO ABLE to be made, which then ALTER the course of events.

[Age]

But if ANY one wants to PROVIDE ANY other definition for 'us' to LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, then I am MORE than WILLING to, and to CHANGE.

This one works for me: Britannica defines free will as "the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will) However, there are numerous other equivalent definitions available.

That's a good definition because it focuses on the one critical difference between free-will and determinism.

AND, what IS the 'one critical difference' between 'free-will' and 'determinism' to 'you', "phylio"?

If that 'one critical difference' is being able to do some thing ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENTLY from AND and ALL prior events, then you might want to LOOK further DEEPLY into this 'conclusion' of yours, and SEE if you can find absolutely ANY thing that could ACTUALLY act independently.

If you do find ANY thing, then will you let us know what that IS?

[Age]

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?

'That definition' states; "the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions INDEPENDENTLY of any prior event or state of the universe."

And this is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

Unless, of course, ANY one can SHOW, or provide an example of, HOW and WHEN ANY thing can be done INDEPENDENTLY of ANY prior event or ANY state of the Universe.

Are you able to SHOW, or provide an example of, HOW ANY thing could do this, let alone a human being having the power or capacity to make a decision or to perform an action or reaction, INDEPENDENT of ANY prior event?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then GREAT.

[BigMike]

If this is the case, then it is abundantly clear that I have a misunderstanding of what you mean when you say "the ability, within, to make choices". Could you please elaborate on that for me?

A robotic vacuum cleaner is NOT able to MAKE 'choices'. It is only able to do what it has been programmed to do. For example your robotic vacuum cleaner can only react by following the pre-programmed IF (this happens), THEN (do this). Whereas, with 'you', human beings, IF (this happens), THEN (you can CHOOSE to do or NOT do absolutely ANY thing). Although the amount of your CHOICES are limited by your past experiences.

So, if humans have this line in their source code: "IF (this happens), THEN (you can CHOOSE to do or NOT do absolutely ANY thing)," what do you mean by "CHOOSE"?

You quoted me asking the same question above, but you're still not answering it.

[Age]

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?

For what it is worth, I think it would be CONTRADICTORY.

And this is just because EVERY human decision AND behavior is ALWAYS a REACTION, of a prior event.

So, 'trying to' CLAIM that human beings could even do some thing that is an IMPOSSIBILITY such as being absolutely INDEPENDENT of ANY prior event would only lead to CONTRADICTIONS.

[BigMike]

'That definition' states; "the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions INDEPENDENTLY of any prior event or state of the universe."

And this is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

But some people, the compatibilists and libertarians, claim it is possible.

Have you finally, after having posted almost 13000 posts here, understood what the free-will dispute is all about?

[Age]

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.

But this is EXACTLY what 'you' are doing here "bigmike".

'you' BELIEVE absolutely and wholeheartedly that there is NO 'free will' and that there is ONLY 'determinism'/'deterministic only world'.

'your' OWN BELIEFS have led 'you' to confirmation bias here.

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.

What is 'many people' based on EXACTLY, other than 'your' OWN 'confirmation bias'?

They are arguing for or against something that is very different, I think.

[Age]

This one works for me: Britannica defines free will as "the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will) However, there are numerous other equivalent definitions available.

1. Considering the Fact that ALL human decisions come from within human bodies, and that ALL human bodies are made of physical matter, which obviously came from prior events or state of the Universe, claiming the power or capacity to make decisions or perform actions or reactions independently of absolutely ANY prior event or state of the Universe is obviously just ABSURD and RIDICULOUS in the extreme.

Well, you just said what I and other people who believe in determinism have always said.

So, 'you' have "always" said that CLAIMING that 'there is ONLY 'determinism' is ABSURD and RIDICULOUS, in the extreme', because this is EXACTLY what I just said?

But according to the compatibilists, people are more than just their bodies. Some of them think that we also have a spirit-like part that can act as a "unmoved first mover" to start things. They call it "mind-body dualism".

I do NOT care what some human beings say. I am only LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

2. The word 'supposed' indicates that the rest of that definition is still up for consideration.

It is the "power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any previous event or state of the universe" that is contested, not the definition itself.

But what is there to contest here, EXACTLY?

It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that there is absolutely NO power NOR ANY capacity of human beings to make decisions or perform actions INDEPENDENTLY of absolutely ANY previous event or state of the Universe.

WHY can 'you' STILL NOT YET SEE, UNDERSTAND, and COMPREHEND this IRREFUTABLE Fact "bigmike"?

Could it be that YOUR BELIEFS and CONFIRMATION BIAS here is STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you' from SEEING that CRYSTAL CLEAR Fact here?

[Age]

If this is the case, then it is abundantly clear that I have a misunderstanding of what you mean when you say "the ability, within, to make choices". Could you please elaborate on that for me?

A robotic vacuum cleaner is NOT able to MAKE 'choices'. It is only able to do what it has been programmed to do. For example your robotic vacuum cleaner can only react by following the pre-programmed IF (this happens), THEN (do this). Whereas, with 'you', human beings, IF (this happens), THEN (you can CHOOSE to do or NOT do absolutely ANY thing). Although the amount of your CHOICES are limited by your past experiences.

So, if humans have this line in their source code: "IF (this happens), THEN (you can CHOOSE to do or NOT do absolutely ANY thing)," what do you mean by "CHOOSE"?

You quoted me asking the same question above, but you're still not answering it.

You only just 'now' asked this question, so what do you mean by, "you are STILL not answering it"?

I mean, pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, or decide on a course of action.

What did you think I meant by 'CHOOSE', and what do you mean by 'CHOOSE'?

[BigMike]

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.

What is 'many people' based on EXACTLY, other than 'your' OWN 'confirmation bias'?

You, yourself said, just five minutes ago, that popeye1945's definition is a contradiction. If you don't remember, here is what you said:

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?

For what it is worth, I think it would be CONTRADICTORY.

And this is just because EVERY human decision AND behavior is ALWAYS a REACTION, of a prior event.

So, 'trying to' CLAIM that human beings could even do some thing that is an IMPOSSIBILITY such as being absolutely INDEPENDENT of ANY prior event would only lead to CONTRADICTIONS.

[Age]

'That definition' states; "the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions INDEPENDENTLY of any prior event or state of the universe."

And this is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

But some people, the compatibilists and libertarians, claim it is possible.

LOL
LOL
LOL

it has been 'you', "bigmike" that BELIEVES and is here CLAIMING that there is ONLY 'determinism', and that that is THE DEFINITION of 'determinism' that 'you' are USING here.

Have you finally, after having posted almost 13000 posts here, understood what the free-will dispute is all about?

YES. I have UNDERSTOOD BEFORE I even came into this forum that 'you', human beings, have been fighting, arguing, disputing, or quarreling OVER the 'free will OR 'determinism' discussion/debate for centuries, hitherto when this is being written, without ANY resolution AT ALL. And this is mostly because NONE of 'you' have even YET come to an agreement on what the terms 'free will' AND 'determinism' could mean and refer to, EXACTLY.

And, let it be KNOWN that 'you' ATTEMPT here at DEFLECTING is VERY HUMOROUS to WATCH and OBSERVE.

What is EXTREMELY FUNNY here is that 'you' have been ATTEMPTING and 'TRYING TO' fight and argue FOR 'your STRONGLY HELD ONTO POSITION' but it appears that 'you' have only just now REALIZED how STUPID and ABSURD it has been all along and so are now 'TRYING TO' TWIST and DEFLECT 'things' here now.