Free will is wholly deterministic

[phyllo]

Yes, it's a dumb thing to say. But it's what Determinism requires us to think. So Determinism, ultimately, is just that dumb.

Good insight.

It doesn't "require" us to think that at all.

One can theoretically trace the current state back to the BB. Noted. But who cares.

There is nothing useful in it.

There's nothing "useful" in Determinism at all, except for the "use" people make of it in eradicating their consciences.

The people who most often trace things back to the BB tend to be those who believe in free-will and are trying to discredit determinism. On forums like this for example.

[Immanuel Can]

The people who most often trace things back to the BB tend to be those who believe in free-will...

Umm...no. Not even close. Sorry. That doesn't even seem to make any sense, as a claim.

But maybe you have an example?

[phyllo]

I think the take away from this thread is ...

There is physical thinking that the determinists do (which includes decisions) and there is some sort of non-physical thinking and volition that the libertarian free-willers do.

[phyllo]

The people who most often trace things back to the BB tend to be those who believe in free-will...

Umm...no. Not even close. Sorry. That doesn't even seem to make any sense, as a claim.

But maybe you have an example?

Sure ...

"You're a determinist so you have to use the BB as the reason for whatever happens."

You did that here:

So why is Phyllo writing? Because of the Big Bang. Why will IC reply? Because of the Big Bang...

What determinist says this??

Not even the hard determinists who try to eliminate responsibility. "Why are you a drug addict? My crappy childhood." NOT "because of the Big Bang".

[Immanuel Can]

You did that here:

So why is Phyllo writing? Because of the Big Bang. Why will IC reply? Because of the Big Bang...

What determinist says this??

None. A Determinist would not expose his mental errors so boldly, that's for sure. But Determinism requires that ultimate explanation: the singularity at the beginning of all things must be at fault for everything.

Why wouldn't they say that? Because the logic of their position is actually so bad that if they stated it as plainly as I have, they'd be laughed out of court. For that matter, if they themselves realized it was that dumb, they'd be inclined to be a bit embarassed for ever having believed it at all...so no doubt, very few of them are this aware of the logic of their own position.

Which is right where it's hitting you, right now. For the first time, you're starting to get a glimpse of how utterly implausible Determinism really is...and I understand that you don't like the view from where you're now standing. That's okay, though: you don't have to be a Determinist. We all make mistakes. What would we be, if we couldn't fix them?

But you can't blame me: I'm not a Determinist, but only somebody who is currently invoking the rationale behind Determinism to expose its mistakes.

[Sculptor]

Sure. But it's nonsensical here, because it has no evident application to anything previously said. It's out-of-context.

But you have not put up.

"But"? Now you're really making no sense at all.

But.
You can shove it up your Butt

[Iwannaplato]

No...the predicate of Determinism is that everything, even God reaching His Hand down from Heaven, creating Matter from Nothing, is also "Determined".

Determinism does not allow itself to be disproved. Why do you think that is, phyllo? Iwanna???

I point out things you say that don't make sense. Whatever my position is has nothing to do with whether what you say makes sense or not.
And your response has nothing to do with what Phyllo said.

[Iwannaplato]

I've been on philosophy forums, won't say which ones and when, under now banned usernames. That is why I can't bring up the past, along with the lack of will to go skimming through the countless thousands of threads I've debated over the last 20 years.

So, there's no one here who said that to you then.

And to your second line of question, I pose to all Determinists, what could possibly be an "act of free-will" to convince you???

This is typical deflection. I am asking you what is an action that a determinist makes that is as-if they have free will?

Now you are asking me to do other things. I am trying to understand what you meant.

It's that simple. If Determinists cannot present any action that can possibly be 'free', then they're dogmatists. Their arguments are premised in faith or religious conviction, not science and philosophy.

I'm not a determinist and any mistakes in my thinking have nothing to do with what you meant and whether your assertions make sense. You're just deflecting.

You have to be able to disprove yourself, in science and philosophy, Empiricism.

So, what would disprove free will for you?

So the onus and burden of proof is on Determinists, not Free-Will-ists.

The onus is on anyone who asserts stuff.

To "us", every action is evidence (to some degree).

Right, though you still haven't explained how you sees degrees of freedom, why some actions of free will people contradict what they say because those actions are as if they are free in some way:

You just deflect and avoid and demand stuff and assume things, anything that helps you avoid justifying things you say.

You the fucking genius who is so smart he needs to wait for a true AI to have a challenge. Perhaps if you actually justified some of the things you just assert, you'd find just old regular homo sapiens a challenge.

I'll say you the trouble of coming up with more non-responses to me by ignoring you.

[phyllo]

You did that here:

So why is Phyllo writing? Because of the Big Bang. Why will IC reply? Because of the Big Bang...

What determinist says this??

None. A Determinist would not expose his mental errors so boldly, that's for sure. But Determinism requires that ultimate explanation: the singularity at the beginning of all things must be at fault for everything.

Why wouldn't they say that? Because the logic of their position is actually so bad that if they stated it as plainly as I have, they'd be laughed out of court. For that matter, if they themselves realized it was that dumb, they'd be inclined to be a bit embarassed for ever having believed it at all...so no doubt, very few of them are this aware of the logic of their own position.

Which is right where it's hitting you, right now. For the first time, you're starting to get a glimpse of how utterly implausible Determinism really is...and I understand that you don't like the view from where you're now standing. That's okay, though: you don't have to be a Determinist. We all make mistakes. What would we be, if we couldn't fix them?

But you can't blame me: I'm not a Determinist, but only somebody who is currently invoking the rationale behind Determinism to expose its mistakes.

Your description of determinism is a caricature. Therefore your refutation is weak.

I think that the independent thinking and volition that you describe doesn't exist.

And you have said nothing which would lead one to believe that it does exist.

[LuckyR]

Of course it requires thinking. How would a determinist move/act/decide otherwise?

Well, Determinism requires going through the "thinking" process (which is actually the brain crunching the numbers of a problem where the conclusion is already determinable), but there is none of what the common usage of the word "thinking" entails.

Indeed so. And the "thinking" is not a word that describes any actual link in the causal chain, according to Determinism. Brain chemistry does all of that, because chemistry is physical (and thus presumably subject to all the physical laws) and "mind" is not. So one does not "think" and "make up one's mind"; rather, "thinking" is a word we use to describe a particular sequence of causes and effects in brain chemistry...no more.

Hence why I brought up the text of Hamlet, since if there is no true thinking, then the text of Hamlet must have semi-spontaneously sprang up out of the relative positions and amounts of neurotransmitters and electric charges in Shakespeare's brain.

Speaking of brains, if all of what common folk call "thinking" is just brain-state 1 moving to brain-state 2 through the natural physical interactions of chemicals and electric charges, why does a "difficult" problem take a long time, sometimes a very long time to "solve"? If the "mind" is an illusion, why shouldn't the electric charges and neurotransmitters just do their (physical) thing and the (eminently determinable) answer pop out the other side? Why go through the motions of this illusion of "thinking"?

[Immanuel Can]

You did that here:

What determinist says this??

None. A Determinist would not expose his mental errors so boldly, that's for sure. But Determinism requires that ultimate explanation: the singularity at the beginning of all things must be at fault for everything.

Why wouldn't they say that? Because the logic of their position is actually so bad that if they stated it as plainly as I have, they'd be laughed out of court. For that matter, if they themselves realized it was that dumb, they'd be inclined to be a bit embarassed for ever having believed it at all...so no doubt, very few of them are this aware of the logic of their own position.

Which is right where it's hitting you, right now. For the first time, you're starting to get a glimpse of how utterly implausible Determinism really is...and I understand that you don't like the view from where you're now standing. That's okay, though: you don't have to be a Determinist. We all make mistakes. What would we be, if we couldn't fix them?

But you can't blame me: I'm not a Determinist, but only somebody who is currently invoking the rationale behind Determinism to expose its mistakes.

Your description of determinism is a caricature.

It's not, actually. It's the logic of Determinism itself that compels the thesis that the singularity (or Big Bang, whatever) set up the original conditions, and everything else is a consequence. So the ultimate answer to every phenomenon in the universe is, "The Big Bang did it."

I think that the independent thinking and volition that you describe doesn't exist.

Then "you" don't "think" it. Rather, "antecedent conditions" make your head "think it" for you. There's no "you," in reality. You're just the sum of antecedent conditions...nothing more.

So there's no "you" and no "thinking." But I think that's crazy.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, Determinism requires going through the "thinking" process (which is actually the brain crunching the numbers of a problem where the conclusion is already determinable), but there is none of what the common usage of the word "thinking" entails.

Indeed so. And the "thinking" is not a word that describes any actual link in the causal chain, according to Determinism. Brain chemistry does all of that, because chemistry is physical (and thus presumably subject to all the physical laws) and "mind" is not. So one does not "think" and "make up one's mind"; rather, "thinking" is a word we use to describe a particular sequence of causes and effects in brain chemistry...no more.

Hence why I brought up the text of Hamlet, since if there is no true thinking, then the text of Hamlet must have semi-spontaneously sprang up out of the relative positions and amounts of neurotransmitters and electric charges in Shakespeare's brain.

Yep. That's what Determinists have to think.

Speaking of brains, if all of what common folk call "thinking" is just brain-state 1 moving to brain-state 2 through the natural physical interactions of chemicals and electric charges, why does a "difficult" problem take a long time, sometimes a very long time to "solve"? If the "mind" is an illusion, why shouldn't the electric charges and neurotransmitters just do their (physical) thing and the (eminently determinable) answer pop out the other side? Why go through the motions of this illusion of "thinking"?

That's a super question, and very much to the point.

[Iwannaplato]

Speaking of brains, if all of what common folk call "thinking" is just brain-state 1 moving to brain-state 2 through the natural physical interactions of chemicals and electric charges, why does a "difficult" problem take a long time, sometimes a very long time to "solve"? If the "mind" is an illusion, why shouldn't the electric charges and neurotransmitters just do their (physical) thing and the (eminently determinable) answer pop out the other side? Why go through the motions of this illusion of "thinking"?

You have a little mechanical car with some simple program for dealing with obstacles and that it shall find the outlet that charges it. (turn left then right on first, if this doesn't work, try right then left or whatever) You put 2 toy blocks on the floor. It manages to quickly get past them and plugs in. You put 100 hundred blocks on the floor in a maze pattern. It takes longer.

Or why does it take pachinko balls longer to fall through a pachinko machine, generally, than to free fall through just air filled space?

[Age]

None. A Determinist would not expose his mental errors so boldly, that's for sure. But Determinism requires that ultimate explanation: the singularity at the beginning of all things must be at fault for everything.

Why wouldn't they say that? Because the logic of their position is actually so bad that if they stated it as plainly as I have, they'd be laughed out of court. For that matter, if they themselves realized it was that dumb, they'd be inclined to be a bit embarassed for ever having believed it at all...so no doubt, very few of them are this aware of the logic of their own position.

Which is right where it's hitting you, right now. For the first time, you're starting to get a glimpse of how utterly implausible Determinism really is...and I understand that you don't like the view from where you're now standing. That's okay, though: you don't have to be a Determinist. We all make mistakes. What would we be, if we couldn't fix them?

But you can't blame me: I'm not a Determinist, but only somebody who is currently invoking the rationale behind Determinism to expose its mistakes.

Your description of determinism is a caricature.

It's not, actually. It's the logic of Determinism itself that compels the thesis that the singularity (or Big Bang, whatever) set up the original conditions, and everything else is a consequence. So the ultimate answer to every phenomenon in the universe is, "The Big Bang did it."

Coming from the one who claims that the ultimate answer to every phenomenon in the Universe is, 'the male God did it', seems somewhat very hypocritical, does it not?

I think that the independent thinking and volition that you describe doesn't exist.

Then "you" don't "think" it. Rather, "antecedent conditions" make your head "think it" for you. There's no "you," in reality. You're just the sum of antecedent conditions...nothing more.

So there's no "you" and no "thinking." But I think that's crazy.

But thinking or believing that 'you' are the sum of 'antecedent conditions' FROM some 'male gendered thing' is not crazy?

Also, 'you', "immanuel can", will PROVE IRREFUTABLY Truth that 'you' WILL NOT ANSWER these QUESTIONS.

[Age]

ONLY WHEN 'you', people, come to AN AGREEMENT of what the word 'free will' ACTUALLY MEANS, ENTAILS, or REFERS TO, EXACTLY, THEN, and ONLY THEN, 'you' can even BEGIN to LOOK AT whether or not 'free will' EXISTS and/or IS WHOLLY DETERMINISTIC or NOT.

UNTIL THEN 'you', people, will CARRY ON the WAY 'you' ARE here, and GET ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE, EXACTLY, like 'you' WERE, BACK in the days when this WAS being written.