Free will is wholly deterministic

[henry quirk]

Each and every necessitarian, no matter where, no matter when, lives his life as a libertarian free will. Not a one naturally, or intentionally, lives as though he were not a libertarian free will.

The cognitive dissonance must be maddening.

True dat.

To argue at all is to act as if Determinism is not true. it's to appeal to a mind to change, and to do something other than what "antecedent conditions" provide for it to do.

So even while the OP denies the truth of will, it relies on will in order to make its case. Cognitive dissonance indeed.

Look here: I make the argument in the knoweldge that some people would not have heard it had I remained silent. Upon what history or circumstance can the necessitarian pawn off such arrogance? How do mindless causal chains result in such self-importance? What conditions give rise to such a singular self-rightousness? There are none. It's all on him.

[Immanuel Can]

Look here: I make the argument in the knoweldge that some people would not have heard it had I remained silent. Upon what history or circumstance can the necessitarian pawn off such arrogance? How do mindless causal chains result in such self-importance? What conditions give rise to such a singular self-rightousness? There are none. It's all on him.

I guess we'd have to say, "antecedent conditions."

According to Determinism, everybody who would hear his argument, did. Everybody who would agree, does. Everybody who doesn't agree, can't. And any contribution he made was actually made by the antecedent conditions that made him do it.

So no credit to anyone.

[henry quirk]

Look here: I make the argument in the knoweldge that some people would not have heard it had I remained silent. Upon what history or circumstance can the necessitarian pawn off such arrogance? How do mindless causal chains result in such self-importance? What conditions give rise to such a singular self-rightousness? There are none. It's all on him.

I guess we'd have to say, "antecedent conditions."

According to Determinism, everybody who would hear his argument, did. Everybody who would agree, does. Everybody who doesn't agree, can't. And any contribution he made was actually made by the antecedent conditions that made him do it.

So no credit to anyone.

No, the credit, or blame, is on him. He's a free will. Nuthin' compelled him to rail. Nuthin' compelled him to be arrogant. Nuthin' compelled him to be self-rightous. He is arrogant. He is self-rightous. He chose to rail.

It's all on him.

[Wizard22]

I think that I can now securely make conclusions on *How* exactly people form logical/rational relationships with Free-Will v Determinism, in how people idealize the sense of taking "responsibility" for actions, ownership over other people's well-being, and social relationships in general.

Those who believe in Determinism, reject themselves as generally Causal agents. It can denigrate into complete abnegation of Personal Responsibility.

Those who believe in Free-Will, admit that there are necessary concessions to be made, as Causal agents. We do cause actions. We do cause life. We do cause existence. Because of this, Free-Will-ists are forced into a moral dilemma...how to reify ethical contradictions and differences between stated beliefs, words, and actions in general. Determinists are not bound by the same proposition. Determinists can live their lives, similar as blissful animals and mammals do, cats and dogs, house pets, without even being aware, and also denying, their Causal relationships throughout their entire lives.


Basically, to the Determinists, it's always somebody else's Fault for harms, badness, evil, problems...and ultimately, God's problem.

It is never their own problem.

[Skepdick]

I am determined to make this argument, as you are determined to be an arsehole.

So you had zero degrees of freedom on making; or not making this argument?

Congratulations. Your will isn't free.

[Sculptor]

Your argument, then, isn't being offered to people who can choose to believe it, and it's not being offered by somebody whose reason for offering it is that it's the best argument.

Yes reality does not care what you believe.

Okay. Then reality also doesn't "care" if one disbelieves in Determinism. It's not the argument for Determinism that will settle the matter either way: it's prior causality that will settle it.

Rather, you were "caused by antecedant conditions" to offer it, and it arrives at people who cannot choose to believe it -- either they are induced by "antecedent conditions" to believe it regardless of its worth as an argument, or they are prevented from believing it by "antecedent condtions" over which they have no control.

But I make the argument in the knoweldge that some people would not have heard it had I remained silent.

"Arguments" don't change anything: only "antecedent causes" do.

#
Moreover, there's no "if" in Determinism: there is one what DID, in fact, happen. You were caused to make the argument, and people will likewise be caused to believe or disbelieve it, however "antecedent conditions" have already arranged things to be. You changed nothing. You achieved nothing. And you added nothing to the situation that "antecedent conditions" did not already make inevitable.

Wrong. Whether or not you have the chops to understand it, does not diminish the rationality of the argument.

"Understanding" does not make an impact, remember? Only "antecedent conditions" do.

And even YOU might oen day hear is enough time to realise that you assinine free will argument has always been bollcoks.

Not possible. Whatever I, or you, will believe is already predetermined for us by "antecedent conditions."

Reality is change. Minds cahnge all the time.

No, the Determinist argument is that "change" is an illusion.

Things are what they are, and what they were fated to be. "Antecedent conditions" make that unavoidable. There is only one way that things are predetermined to be, in each case. Just as there is no "if," there is no "change" either. The fact that we feel that there IS such a thing as change has to be explained away by Determinists as an "epiphenomenon," an illusion that just happens to go along with "antecedent conditioning," for no reason we understand.

Once again - this is not about belief. You can believe what you will, but you cannot will what you will. There is every reason to set aside your childish belief and smell the coffee of reality.

Except nobody can do that. "Antecedent conditions," remember? They're all that Determinism allows.

Are you happy with any argument you offer, since I have radical free will,

Where did the word "radical" come from? I have never used it. It seems you're afraid a more moderate position would be uncomfortable for you, and are at pains to make my belief in free will extreme or "radical," if you can.

But you can't. I don't recognize that characterization as mine.

...by your estimation nothing you can ever say to me can CAUSE me to change my mind, or anyone's mind since they have alos to chose to beleive something else.

You might have been typing a bit quickly here...I can't figure out what this argument here is supposed to be.

In any case, it's nothing I said. But maybe you don't mind slowing down and making it clear. If so, I'll respond...after all, I believe you and I can change our minds, if there are good reasons to do so.

But a Determinist can't.
[/quote]

An argument is a cause. Therefore most of what you have responded with here is meaningless.

[Sculptor]

I am determined to make this argument, as you are determined to be an arsehole.

So you had zero degrees of freedom on making; or not making this argument?

Congratulations. Your will isn't free.

I am as free as I am determined by myself.
And not free as far as I am compelled by others.

[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.

BUT, 'Who am 'I', EXACTLY?' was NOT YET even KNOWN by 'you', when 'you' wrote 'this'?

So, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' are NOT YET AWARE OF the EXACT 'things', which make 'you', 'you'.

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,

But the words, term, and phrase, 'free will', do NOT mean that 'you' are FREE of the OBVIOUS 'deterministic condition' of the Universe, Itself.

'That' INTERPRETATION was just ONE of MANY MISINTERPRETATIONS 'you', human beings, HAD BACK THEN when this was being written.

the laws and cause and effect which cause my decision to be made of necessity to the conditions at that moment.

There is NO 'necessity' to CHOOSE to FOLLOW ANY human made up law.

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.

WHY do 'you' PERSIST with such an OBVIOUSLY TWISTED and DISTORTED PERCEPTION OF 'free will' and what the 'free will' words MEAN and are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

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?

Refute 'what', EXACTLY?

'you' have managed to REFUTE "your" OWN 'self' here.

[Age]

'Free will' ONLY exists BECAUSE OF the 'deterministic Universe'.

To IMAGINE 'free will' exists because OF some 'nondeterministic thing' or that 'free will' does NOT exist ARE BOTH DELUSIONAL thinking AND seeing.

[Skepdick]

I am as free as I am determined by myself.
And not free as far as I am compelled by others.

It's almost like you don't understand the meaning of those words...

Free as in freedom requires that you have some degree of freedom greater than zero.

A "wholly determined will" has zero degrees of freedom. So it's not a "free" will.
And a will which is determined by something more than "the sum of all all antecedent conditions" has some degree of freedom so it's non-deterministic.

You just keep disagreeing with yourself

[Sculptor]

I am as free as I am determined by myself.
And not free as far as I am compelled by others.

It's almost like you don't understand the meaning of those words...

If you are haing difficulty start with a dictionary.
Then when you are ready for your big-boy pants try to consult some of that philosphy you hate and refuse to engage with.

[Skepdick]

If you are haing difficulty start with a dictionary.
Then when you are ready for your big-boy pants try to consult some of that philosphy you hate and refuse to engage with.

It's precisely the philosophy (your philosophy) I am pointing out as wrong and incoherent.

If you are having difficulty seeing it perhaps you need to move on past philosophy? It's what grown ups do.

[phyllo]

An argument is a cause.

Or in other words, it becomes an "antecedent condition".

[henry quirk]

Basically, to the Determinists, it's always somebody else's Fault for harms, badness, evil, problems... It is never their own problem.

Yes. Ultimately passin' the buck is what necessitarianism is about. But, as I say: each and every necessitarian, no matter where, no matter when, lives his life as a libertarian free will. Not a one naturally, or intentionally, lives as though he were not a libertarian free will.

[henry quirk]

An argument is a cause.

Or in other words, it becomes an "antecedent condition".

No, not in the deterministic sense meant by necessitarians. I, for example, am the cause of my argument. It's my construct. It doesn't assemble itself from the lego blocks of history or circumstance. It, the argument, is my instrument. it exists becuz I chose to mull, and reason, and conclude, and compose. I come first. I am the cause.

You, hearing my argument, are not compelled to respond. My argument, as you reject it or agree with it, does necessarily move you to action. You, for reasons idiosyncratic to you, may compose a counter or write a blog post or tell your spouse about it or go meh and forget about it. To you, my argument is an event you can take or leave.

History and circumstance do not necessitate what a person does, they only inform him.