Free will is wholly deterministic

[Sculptor]

You can't even work an ignore list - I doubt you posess the intellect the understand the relevance,

Since I began the thread I thought it only fair to read your "contribution".
If you think you have an argument with this paradox, then please feel free to make it.
But you can hardly expect me to waste my time one a one-line response.

You want me to waste time writing an essay when a one-line response suffices to reject your entire line of reasoning?!?

That's fucking stupid.

If you don't want read then don't read. Nobody's going to force you to be less ignorant.

I offered you the chance.
Take it or leave it.
Leaeve it of fuck off the thread

[Immanuel Can]

If they are immaterial then how can they all be altered by drugs and physical injury?

When two things correlate, that does not tell us about causality. Check the link.

If they are not "material" then how do they interact with the "material" world?

That would only be a problem if we already had convinced ourselves, without any evidence at all, that all there was in the universe were material phenomena.

But even by your own game, they they are not "material" neither is light, heat and all other forms of energy.

Actually, they are physical. Light is measurable in "lumens." Energy is measured in "joules." Both are quantifiable and physical.

In what units are "thoughts" and "consciousness" and "experience" measured?

But you're still not even mentioning the other problem: why are you arguing, since nobody can change their mind? Are you really expecting that an immaterial property called "reasons" acting on "consciousness" is going to produce a physical effect called "change" or "new belief" in a brain-state? If so, you have no deterministic account behind you on that.

Why do you not answer the questions like an honest person?

Which question have I not answered?

And where is your answer to mine?

[Age]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision.

LOL

When you 'choose' to do ANY 'thing', then you make a 'decision'.

This is just what 'choice' IS, essentially.

Now that we have 'that' out of the way, let us proceed.

The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialisation, experience ad infinitem.

The sum of 'what' 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, is just the total of the 'past experiences' of 'that body'.

It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am.

Yes, the sum of ALL the 'past experiences' have made 'you', who 'you' are. Which is just the, invisible, thoughts and emotions within 'that body'.

There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment.

But 'that' is NOT what the words 'free will' mean NOR are referring to anyway.

It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus,

you were pre-determined to be absolutely FREE to do whatever you so please.

Or, do you BELIEVE otherwise?

And, if you do, then 'what' MADE you 'make THAT decision'?

and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice.

But you do NOT YET have the FULL knowledge of ALL of the consequences and the responsibility of YOUR CHOICES.

Or, do you BELIEVE you ALREADY KNOW 'the future'?

Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless.

WHY did you add the 'or would be meaningless' words on the end here?

Did you think that 'that' would give your BELIEF here some more leverage or credence?

What you PERCEIVE to be 'free will' may well be an ILLUSION. But what the words 'free will' MEAN and REFER TO, EXACTLY, FIT IN PERFECTLY with GUTOE.

I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

So, who or what set 'determinism' into ACTION? And, what for? What is the FINAL GOAL or END RESULT?

What is 'your will' anyway?

But apparently, God gives us free will.

God also, apparently, set ALL-OF-THIS into ACTION. Therefore, if 'you' are just ANOTHER 'agent' 'of determinism', then 'you' are just ANOTHER one IN God's PLAN.

And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

BUT God is NOT a "he". AND, God does NOT 'insist' ANY 'thing'.

ANyone care to refute?

YES.

AS ABOVE.

ANY one care to refute, counter, challenge, question, and/or seek clarification?

[Age]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialisation, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

ANyone care to refute?

Well, "decision," "motivation," "volition," "education," "socialization," "experience"...all are cognitive and non-material phenomena. How many feet are there in an "education"? What kind of a thermometer can measure "volition"? Can you add a slice of "motivation" to your cake batter, or does a "decision" weigh six pounds or seven? And how many calories in an "experience"?

See? They're phenomena of consciousness. So if you invoke them, you've already undermined that argument totally.

Not necessarily so.

You're including personal consciousness in your description of causality. So the description's not deterministic at all.

False, and just plain Wrong and Incorrect.

However, the fact that you are arguing and asking for "refutation" proves you don't believe the confused stuff above.

Asking for 'refutation' does NOT prove that that one does NOT believed the things you SAY and BELIEVE.

you REALLY ARE VERY MIXED UP and CONFUSED here "immanuel can".

Because if you did, you couldn't get anybody to change their mind anyway.

Here is FURTHER PROOF of just how MIXED UP and CONFUSED 'you' REALLY ARE.

The state of their mind at all times would be nothing but the collocation of previous material and deterministic causes, not in any way produced by volition.

AND it is ONLY through INTRODUCING 'new things' the (pre) determined process continues.

By the way, WHY does one who BELIEVES that God CREATED Everything, and HAS A PLAN, is NOT 'in control' here and is NOT 'determining' 'the outcome'?

Will 'you' answer this for 'us' "immanuel can"?

If no, then WHY NOT? What are 'you' SO SCARED OF, EXACTLY?

That's pretty much all the refutation needed.

But you have NOT provided ANY, YET.

That was about the shortest argument on record.

And may well be the most UNSOUND and INVALID one AS WELL.

[Age]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialisation, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

ANyone care to refute?

Well, "decision," "motivation," "volition," "education," "socialization," "experience"...all are cognitive and non-material phenomena.

Quite the contrary.

All of these things are clearly provably Physical.

Wow REALLY.

Will you provide THE PROOF?

If no, then WHY NOT? What are you SO SCARED OF here, EXACTLY?

If they are immaterial then how can they all be altered by drugs and physical injury?

How, EXACTLY, is the decision to eat vanila ice cream, for example, altered by drugs and physical injury, EXACTLY?

If they are not "material" then how do they interact with the "material" world?

If they are 'material', then what EXACT PROOF do you have for this?

And, if you FIND OUT, EXACTLY, how the, apparent, 'immaterial' interacts WITH the 'material', then please let the rest of 'us' KNOW.

But even by your own game, they they are not "material" neither is light, heat and all other forms of energy. Yet they all have effects.

So, HOW, EXACTLY?

[Age]

I think it's a question of how much, if any, free will we have.

I found that by FINDING OUT what the two words 'free will' were ACTUALLY MEANING, or are ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, far more SUFFICIENT, and SATISFYING.

For example if one was to ask the question, 'How much 'free will' do we have?' I would wonder, what does that one even mean by 'free will'?

So, what do the words 'free will' even MEAN, or even REFER TO, to you, EXACTLY "harbal"?

It has been shown that many of the decisions we believe we make consciously have already been made at a deeper lever in our psyche (or whatever they call it) beforehand. It just feels like it was a conscious decision.

But NOT ALL, right?

I don't like the thought of not having any free will at all, but it seems that could be the case.

WHY, what about those decisions that are 'consciously made'?

Oh, and by the way, 'this', REALLY, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with, ACTUAL, 'free will' anyway.

[Age]

I think it's a question of how much, if any, free will we have. It has been shown that many of the decisions we believe we make consciously have already been made at a deeper lever in our psyche (or whatever they call it) beforehand. It just feels like it was a conscious decision. I don't like the thought of not having any free will at all, but it seems that could be the case.

But even if you are perfectly conscious of your choice and think it is made freely then there is still the question of what is causing your consciousness to be such as it is.

WHY?

What do you think or believe 'consciousness' ACTUALLY IS to begin with anyway?

[Skepdick]

I offered you the chance.
Take it or leave it.
Leaeve it of fuck off the thread

I already took it.

You asked for refutations - the implication of Newcomb's paradox is a refutation.

Read it. Understand it. Or don't.

[Age]

Well, "decision," "motivation," "volition," "education," "socialization," "experience"...all are cognitive and non-material phenomena.

Quite the contrary.

All of these things are clearly provably Physical.

Then describe their physical properties: how much do they weigh, or what is their temperature, or how many can you fit in a Volkswagen?

They're manifestly NOT physical,

What ACTUAL PROOF do you have that 'they' are NOT physical?

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of when two or more people are ARGUING/FIGHTING OVER some 'thing', which absolutely NONE of them have absolutely ANY ACTUAL PROOF for.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, we have a PRIME example of two people FIGHTING OVER, ONLY, what they BELIEVE is true, but WITHOUT ANY shred of evidence for.

because they lack every property, such as density, or mass, or occupying space, that characterize physical things.

And you KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

Just because you have NOT YET FOUND some 'thing', this does NOT, NECESSARILY, mean one 'thing' or ANOTHER.

ALL of those 'things' might well be 'physical', 'we', in the days when this is being written, just do NOT YET KNOW, OBVIOUSLY.

Now, OF COURSE, there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence NOR proof that those 'things' ARE 'physical', but there is ALSO ABSOLUTELY NO evidence NOR proof of the contrary.

From my perspective, those 'things' APPEAR to NOT be 'physical' in ANY way, but 'my perspective' is NOT NECESSARILY True, Right NOR Correct, EVER.

Which is some 'thing' I WISH "others" would come to LEARN, and ACCEPT, AS WELL.

You need to remove all of them from your account, if you wanted to be determinist, and redescribe all of them in terms of mere physics.

OBVIOUSLY False, AND Wrong, AGAIN.

'Things' do NOT, necessarily, have to be material/physical for 'determinism' to PROCEED.

If they are material then how can they all be altered by drugs and physical injury?

That last sentence doesn't even makes sense: I believe you were trying to say, "If they are NOT material..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... _causation.

And when you're done, the other problem still remains: you're asking people who (as a determinist) you must believe cannot change their minds, especially for cognitive reasons, to change their minds in order to believe in determinism. But according to determinism, what they are, at any given moment, is entirely a product of prior physical causes, and absolutely nothing but those.

And what is, supposedly, wrong with 'this'?

So they can't believe you. "Believing" is itself just a physical, cause-effect relation, entirely unrelated to the rational integrity of any argument offered...according to determinism.

But this is NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

[Age]

"Believing" is itself just a physical, cause-effect relation, entirely unrelated to the rational integrity of any argument offered...according to determinism.

If they are immaterial then how can they all be altered by drugs and physical injury?

The exact same way that if 'thoughts' are not material/physical can be altered by other physical 'things'.

If they are not "material" then how do they interact with the "material" world?

Maybe more or less the exact same way the 'material world' interacts with the 'immaterial world'.

But even by your own game, they they are not "material" neither is light, heat and all other forms of energy. Yet they all have effects.

Yes true.

[Age]

I think it's a question of how much, if any, free will we have. It has been shown that many of the decisions we believe we make consciously have already been made at a deeper lever in our psyche (or whatever they call it) beforehand. It just feels like it was a conscious decision. I don't like the thought of not having any free will at all, but it seems that could be the case.

But even if you are perfectly conscious of your choice and think it is made freely then there is still the question of what is causing your consciousness to be such as it is.

Yes, I see what you mean, but I can't imagine where to start looking for the answer to that question. I believe we are still nowhere near figuring out what consciousness actually is, and how it comes about.

YET some of 'us' have ALREADY ARRIVED AT the CONCLUSION, and ANSWER.

[Age]

"Believing" is itself just a physical, cause-effect relation, entirely unrelated to the rational integrity of any argument offered...according to determinism.

If they are immaterial then how can they all be altered by drugs and physical injury?

When two things correlate, that does not tell us about causality. Check the link.

If they are not "material" then how do they interact with the "material" world?

That would only be a problem if we already had convinced ourselves, without any evidence at all, that all there was in the universe were material phenomena.

How have 'you' CONVINCED "your" 'self" that there are IMMATERIAL 'things', without ANY ACTUAL proof AT ALL?

And, WHY NOT just ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed and ASKED here, IF as you SAY and BELIEVE there ARE ACTUAL 'immaterial' 'things' EXISTING?

By the way, NOT answering the question, and LAYING BLAME and ACCUSATIONS that there would be some sort of 'problem' otherwise is NOT helping YOUR position here.

EITHER you KNOW how the 'immaterial' interacts with the 'material' or you do NOT.

Now, if you do NOT, then NO one with SOUND thinking would not be SURPRISED. BUT, if you do NOT KNOW, then just SAY SO.

AND, if you do KNOW, then just, also, SAY SO, and then EXPLAIN.

But even by your own game, they they are not "material" neither is light, heat and all other forms of energy.

Actually, they are physical. Light is measurable in "lumens." Energy is measured in "joules." Both are quantifiable and physical.

In what units are "thoughts" and "consciousness" and "experience" measured?

But you're still not even mentioning the other problem: why are you arguing, since nobody can change their mind?

WHY do 'you', people, KEEP BELIEVING and INSISTING that 'you' HAVE 'your' OWN 'minds'?

'you', "immanuel can", are MISSING the POINT here.

It is through, and from, written words for example, which IS a material thing, what DETERMINES what 'thoughts' THEN exist, AFTER being read. As "sculptor" has been POINTING OUT and SHOWING here.

People SAY and/or ARGUE 'things' to CONTROL the, invisible, 'thinking' WITHIN "other" bodies.

Are you really expecting that an immaterial property called "reasons" acting on "consciousness" is going to produce a physical effect called "change"

LOL How, EXACTLY, is 'change', itself, a physical/material 'thing' if 'reason' and 'consciousness' are NOT?

or "new belief" in a brain-state?

you just came up with and wrote 'this' 'thinking' that 'it' backs up and supports what you BELIEVE is true here.

But on FURTHER and DEEPER REFLECTION what will be SEEN is just how ABSURD and NONSENSICAL 'it' ACTUAL IS, and is just FURTHER PROOF of how people will SAY just about ANY 'thing' in the HOPE that what they currently BELIEVE is true can be substantiated.

If so, you have no deterministic account behind you on that.

[Age]

If they are immaterial then how can they all be altered by drugs and physical injury?

When two things correlate, that does not tell us about causality. Check the link.

If they are not "material" then how do they interact with the "material" world?

That would only be a problem if we already had convinced ourselves, without any evidence at all, that all there was in the universe were material phenomena.

But even by your own game, they they are not "material" neither is light, heat and all other forms of energy.

Actually, they are physical. Light is measurable in "lumens." Energy is measured in "joules." Both are quantifiable and physical.

In what units are "thoughts" and "consciousness" and "experience" measured?

But you're still not even mentioning the other problem: why are you arguing, since nobody can change their mind? Are you really expecting that an immaterial property called "reasons" acting on "consciousness" is going to produce a physical effect called "change" or "new belief" in a brain-state? If so, you have no deterministic account behind you on that.

Why do you not answer the questions like an honest person?
The reason is that you cannot.
I can change your consciousness with a cricket bat; alter your perception with a drug, and change your mind by spooning out a part of your brain.
A good anesthetist can control your consciousness, yet you have no account of what is "immaterial".

And a so-called "bad one" can do a longer, or better, job.

I offer you science and you have magic.

WHERE is the supposed 'science' that those 'things' ARE 'material'?

Cut open ANY human body, into as many pieces as you like, and SHOW and PROVE to 'us' how 'things' like 'Mind', 'thoughts', 'consciousness', 'reason', 'beliefs', 'assumptions', 'emotions', et cetera., et cetera. ARE 'material'.

Or, do you have ANOTHER way?

Even if there are such things as immaterial things, they would still be caused by something.

OF COURSE.

And whether or not you make a choice with the immaterial you still have to operate in the real world.

What is the so-called 'real world' COMPARED to some 'unreal world'?

You have no case.

But you have, hey "sculptor"?

[Age]

When I chose to commit a crime, or not commit a crime I make a decision. The decision is based on a nexus of causalities which include all antecedent conditions including my motivation, volition, physical and mental needs, education, socialisation, experience ad infinitem. It might be difficult for another to predict my choice. But that choice can only make sense if it is the sum of those causalities, the things that make me who I am. There are laws that might deter me, or encourage me. but it is not free in an absolute sense that I am free of the deterministic condition of the universe, the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment. It is an inescapable truth that I am determined to act thus, and in the full knowledge of the consequences and the responsibility which is wholly mine, I make the choice. Free will is illusory, such choices are determined or would be meaningless. I am that agent of determinism compatible with causality and the exercise of my will.

But apparently, God gives us free will. And about that, we have no choice, because he insists upon it. Unless you are a Calvinist, then you don't.

ANyone care to refute?

*yawn*

Newcomb's paradox.

Irrelevant
This is why I have you on ignore.

HOW does one SEE what "another" wrote IF the "other" is, supposedly, on IGNORE?

[Age]

Irrelevant
This is why I have you on ignore.

You can't even work an ignore list - I doubt you posess the intellect the understand the relevance,

Since I began the thread I thought it only fair to read your "contribution".

Well that sort of DEFEATS the WHOLE PURPOSE of being on IGNORE, does it not?

If you think you have an argument with this paradox, then please feel free to make it.
But you can hardly expect me to waste my time one a one-line response.

Yet here you HAVE, ALREADY.