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

[Wizard22]

Either we have free will or we don't.

Why is it black and white, an absolute division?

Have you considered that Free-Will is a matter of degree?

Your conceptions of all of this, determinism and free will and compatibilism - all of it seems so extremely alien. It doesn't feel like you're talking about the same stuff as the rest of us, even if you happen to use some of the same words.

Strange, innit?

Free-Willists and Determinists don't seem to be speaking the same language, do we?

[Flannel Jesus]

Free-Willists and Determinists don't seem to be speaking the same language, do we?

No, I think it's a lot worse than that in your case. I think a lot of librarian free willists would see your participation in this thread as alien too. As far as I know, most libertarian fw-ers don't think someone loses free will by saying the words "I don't believe in free will". You're the only person I've seen suggest that.

[Wizard22]

He need prove nothing.

Your words here, not mine.

It's interesting how people run into walls in these conversations and types of debates.

My position is the easier one to prove though. All I need to do is show you actions that are freely-willed, which you and no other can expect, and then you must agree to a loss of your expectations. Hence, it is your knowledge, or your ignorance more accurately, which are the expectations you use to rule Free-Will out. If you don't want to admit to these expectations, then I need only to demonstrate acts of Free-Will which nobody can deny.

And I can, but it is difficult.

[Flannel Jesus]

He thinks his positions are fine unless other people can prove there is something he doesn't understand.

Think of how hard that task truly is: you have to make someone understand that there's something they don't understand. How can you do that, without making them understand the thing they're not understanding?

It's not necessarily impossible, but you'll need someone willing to listen to do it haha.

[Flannel Jesus]

He need prove nothing.

Your words here, not mine.

It's interesting how people run into walls in these conversations and types of debates.

My position is the easier one to prove though. All I need to do is show you actions that are freely-willed, which you and no other can expect, and then you must agree to a loss of your expectations.

This is another confusion. Determinism is very little about expectations. Every determinist alive has experienced things they didn't expect.

[Wizard22]

No, I think it's a lot worse than that in your case. I think a lot of librarian free willists would see your participation in this thread as alien too. As far as I know, most libertarian fw-ers don't think someone loses free will by saying the words "I don't believe in free will". You're the only person I've seen suggest that.

Have you ever been in a situation in life of grave importance, where you had to fully trust another person, or, a complete stranger?

Would you call that a risk or not?

[Wizard22]

This is another confusion. Determinism is very little about expectations.

And on this point, we disagree.

I know that you and other Determinists vastly over-estimate your trust on 'The Science' and 'Physics'.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, I think it's a lot worse than that in your case. I think a lot of librarian free willists would see your participation in this thread as alien too. As far as I know, most libertarian fw-ers don't think someone loses free will by saying the words "I don't believe in free will". You're the only person I've seen suggest that.

Have you ever been in a situation in life of grave importance, where you had to fully trust another person, or, a complete stranger?

Would you call that a risk or not?

I've been in that situation, sure. I consider it a risk, yes.

[Wizard22]

I've been in that situation, sure. I consider it a risk, yes.

Therefore, belief in free-will is also a risk.

[Flannel Jesus]

I've been in that situation, sure. I consider it a risk, yes.

Therefore, belief in free-will is also a risk.

How does that follow? What does it mean? How is it relevant?

[popeye1945]

response is reaction

Reacting is responding.

Not as I see it, no. A reaction is unthinking, instinctual; a response is driven by intent and consideration. My perspective, however, is as someone who believes himself to be a free will. You, as sumthin' other, see it differently.

The outside world is cause, when one endeavors to affect the outside world, one must first make that endeavor one's will, this is called motivational reaction. All human endeavors are motivated and motivation spells reaction. This is the relation of subject and object where the world as object is the other half of one's mind, meaning it is the fuel of the mind; without which there is no mind at all. One does not govern the existence of the physical world you are but part of it. Reactionary organisms are a functional aspect of the physical world. Reaction in any given situation can be choice or ignorance of the consequences, the reaction can be adaptive or a failure to adapt. If one is highly ignorant of the appropriate reactions to given situations one is likely not to survive. If you are not seeing this differently then you cannot believe in free will. As I stated earlier, the belief in free will is an egocentric delusion, one that is a source of great ignorance and chaos in the world. Diminish the object/world and one diminishes oneself. I have listed many of the ways in which reaction is the means of being in the world from evolutionary adaptations to the source of disease and one's reactions to it. How one cannot understand the behaviors of one's fellows nor the behaviors of nations without asking what are they reacting to. What you have done with these principles of being I do not know. You did not explain them away.

Name me one unmotivated action of humanity, you can't

I wouldn't becuz I never claimed such a thing.

and a motivated response is reaction.

See above.

[Wizard22]

How does that follow? What does it mean? How is it relevant?

Because you have to believe what a Free-Willist believes about free-will, if you in any way desire to understand his/her perspective about free-will.

And, maybe you don't. Maybe Determinists just like being Determined, and Free-Willists like just being Free. It could be as simple as this, difference in values.

Some people choose Security. Others choose Liberty.

[Wizard22]

Let's return to a baser, far simpler point:

What kind of people don't want Free Will? Those that know that a free Will would result in harm, evil, catastrophe. They would then reject the notion of Free-Will, because to them, freedom would entail the releasing of malevolence upon the world. Thus they've ruled it out.

Now, how many of you Determinists believe that a "free-will" would constitute as such? That it would be Immoral? That it would go against your Christian, Jewish, Moslem upbringing? That you would have renounce and reject what your Parents taught you was good? That you would be spurned by the society that indoctrinated your youth?

How many people of the world, are caged animals? And they are not only physically caged, but mentally as well? And you've been taught that Will must never again become Free, because it would ONLY result in Evil?


How many Determinists believe this, exactly???

(hint: a LOT of them do)

[Flannel Jesus]

How does that follow? What does it mean? How is it relevant?

Because you have to believe what a Free-Willist believes about free-will, if you in any way desire to understand his/her perspective about free-will.

And, maybe you don't. Maybe Determinists just like being Determined, and Free-Willists like just being Free. It could be as simple as this, difference in values.

Some people choose Security. Others choose Liberty.

This line of conversation has turned into literal nonsense. One non sequitur after another.

[henry quirk]

Did I say There would be no change?

Yes, those were very literally your words.

I'll be damned: you're right.

What it illustrates, for me, is that HE can't be the source of that difference in choice.

For me, it just means, all things bein' equal, Junior had no reason to choose differently.

If Willy was the same, perfectly the same, then Willy was not the source of the change.

There would be no change becuz Junior had no reason to choose differently, yes.