Free will is wholly deterministic

[Wizard22]

So the burden's on the Determinist to show why we're all crazy,

The best I've seen Determinists come up with, is to accuse Free-Will-ists, that our decision-making faculties are illusions, or produce illusions.

Thus any state of 'freedom' conceived, is automatically rejected by Determinism. There cannot be any 'free' states of existence.

That's why they also cannot produce, even hypothetical cases, of "free actions". The "Soft Determinists" concede that freedom is free from coercion. But that's a rabbit-hole. Freedom, I believe, is contingent on much more than mere coercion. How about bodily movement? Having one left, or one arm, severely limits freedom. But that doesn't then conclude that the disabled person, has no Free-Will. It is only a detriment, a part negative, as-is any hypothetical 'coercion'. So at what level, to the Determinists, is the distinction between free or not-free made?

(I pose this to the Determinists, not you IC)

[Wizard22]

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.

I tend to skip the middle of (repetitious) arguments and go straight to their logical conclusions...

[Wizard22]

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

All of them!

[Wizard22]

So, what would disprove free will for you?

I want a Determinist to explain how 'free' will is completely negated, at what specific point.

For example, a person might be missing a leg or arm. That person's freedom, to move, in inhibited. But we (Free-Will-ists) don't therein conclude he/she has no Free Will. Because Free Will is far more essential than missing a limb. You can be jailed, and still have Free Will. You can be a child, and still have Free Will. You can be an infant, sucking on mom's breasts, and still have Free Will. It may not seem like it, to the Determinists though. Because Determinists have a very high bar for what they consider Free Will. To the Determinists, to the Hard Determinists, you need to be God-Himself.

You need to lift a mountain with your telekenetic powers, to demonstrate Free-Will.

You need to perform Miracles, to demonstrate Free-Will.


That's their standards, don't you understand yet???

The Free-Will-ists have different standards. We start from the ground, Up. A baby crawling, is demonstrating, and PROVING, its Free-Will!

[Age]

So the burden's on the Determinist to show why we're all crazy,

The best I've seen Determinists come up with, is to accuse Free-Will-ists, that our decision-making faculties are illusions, or produce illusions.

Thus any state of 'freedom' conceived, is automatically rejected by Determinism. There cannot be any 'free' states of existence.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' that OCCURS, happens BECAUSE of 'BEFORE', INCLUDING 'free will'.

The 'free will' WOULD DETERMINISTICALLY COME-ABOUT IS EQUAL TO THE Fact that 'human beings' EVOLVED FROM some 'thing' ELSE, and EVOLVE INTO some 'thing' ELSE.

What OCCURS 'NOW', CREATES 'the future' AND what IS HAPPENING 'NOW, is BECAUSE OF 'the past'.

The 'past' AND the 'future' are ONLY 'perceptions', as there IS REALLY ONLY the 'NOW'.

'Free will' IS NOT, and I WILL REPEAT NOT, OBSERVABLE 'physical matter', and has been IN Existence for at least as long as physical 'CHOOSING CREATURES' HAVE BEEN.

That's why they also cannot produce, even hypothetical cases, of "free actions".

BUT, CAN the so-called "free williests" PRODUCE A CASE OF 'free actions'?

If yes, then just SHOW 'them', and then this WHOLE STUPID DEBATE would be OVER, right?

The "Soft Determinists" concede that freedom is free from coercion. But that's a rabbit-hole. Freedom, I believe, is contingent on much more than mere coercion.

WHO CARES in ONLY HEARING what 'you' BELIEVE. How ABOUT 'you' JUST PROVIDE the IRREFUTABLE Truth FOR what 'you' BELIEVE, INSTEAD?

How about bodily movement? Having one left, or one arm, severely limits freedom.

LOL
LOL
LOL

How EXACTLY could the missing of 'one arm', laughingly, 'severely LIMIT' 'freedom', itself?

But that doesn't then conclude that the disabled person, has no Free-Will.

Thinking or BELIEVING that A human body with one arm, instead of two arms, IS DISABLED, WAS just HOW STUPID and FOOLISH some people REALLY WERE, BACK THEN.

It is only a detriment, a part negative, as-is any hypothetical 'coercion'. So at what level, to the Determinists, is the distinction between free or not-free made?

WHY do 'you', "wizard22", TELL 'us', 'At what level is the distinction between 'free' and 'not free' made, TO 'you'?

(I pose this to the Determinists, not you IC)

As can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED here, 'these people', BACK THEN, REALLY DID HAVE absolutely NO CLUE NOR IDEA AT ALL, but DID just LOVE TO ARGUE and FIGHT WITH "each other" OVER, RELATIVELY, NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY.

[Wizard22]

ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' that OCCURS, happens BECAUSE of 'BEFORE', INCLUDING 'free will'.

Nope, that's not true.

Because you don't know everything that came before. Nobody does. So you don't have ground to make that claim.

And even if, presuming it were true, it wouldn't mean that something 'New' or unknowable could not occur now.

[Age]

So, what would disprove free will for you?

I want a Determinist to explain how 'free' will is completely negated, at what specific point.

LOL 'you', people, have NOT even DECIDED on WHAT the words 'free will' even ACTUALLY MEAN and REFER TO, YET.

BUT, 'you' STILL WANT TO PROVE or DISPROVE 'one' OVER "the other".

For example, a person might be missing a leg or arm.

LOL 'These people' HAD NOT YET, in the days when this WAS being written, DISCOVERED and/or WORKED OUT that A 'person' can NOT have an arm or a leg missing, and that to even ASSUME SO what BEYOND RIDICULOUSNESS.

That person's freedom, to move, in inhibited. But we (Free-Will-ists) don't therein conclude he/she has no Free Will. Because Free Will is far more essential than missing a limb.

Has absolutely ANY one ELSE brought up this 'arm or leg missing from a human body' has absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL TO DO WITH 'free will', itself? Or, is "wizard22" the ONLY one who BROUGHT 'this' INTO this discussion?

You can be jailed, and still have Free Will. You can be a child, and still have Free Will. You can be an infant, sucking on mom's breasts, and still have Free Will. It may not seem like it, to the Determinists though. Because Determinists have a very high bar for what they consider Free Will. To the Determinists, to the Hard Determinists, you need to be God-Himself.

Okay, and for 'you' so-called "free willies" what 'bar' do 'you' HAVE for 'free will'?

How about INSTEAD of TELLING 'us' that "the other" IS WRONG, 'you' TELL 'us' WHY 'you' ARE RIGHT?

You need to lift a mountain with your telekenetic powers, to demonstrate Free-Will.

You need to perform Miracles, to demonstrate Free-Will.


That's their standards, don't you understand yet???

The Free-Will-ists have different standards. We start from the ground, Up. A baby crawling, is demonstrating, and PROVING, its Free-Will!

LOL HOW, EXACTLY?

HOW does SEEING a clump of 'matter', in the shape and form of what is sometimes called a 'human baby', to 'you', DEMONSTRATE, and PROVE, 'Free-Will', itself, "wizard22"?

Just SAYING, 'A baby crawling, is demonstrating, and PROVING, 'its' 'Free-Will', does NOT, and I will repeat, DOES NOT SHOW NOR PROVE to "others" that baby's CLAIMED TO HAVE 'free-will'.

1. INFORM 'us' of WHAT, EXACTLY, the words or term 'free will' ACTUALLY MEAN or REFERS TO, TO 'you', "wizard22". THEN,

2. EXPLAIN HOW, and even WHY, 'you', human being things, HAVE 'that' what 'you' SAY and CLAIM IS 'free will'. THEN,

3. 'We' WILL DECIDE what HAPPENS, NEXT. Thus, SHOWING and DEMONSTRATING 'our' PREDETERMINED 'reactions', OR, 'our' INNATE 'free will'.

[Age]

ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' that OCCURS, happens BECAUSE of 'BEFORE', INCLUDING 'free will'.

Nope, that's not true.

Okay.

Because you don't know everything that came before.

LOL Even IF I did NOT KNOW 'it' would NOT matter ONE IOTA here.

One, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT HAVE TO KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' PRIOR to ANY MOMENT to KNOW that WHAT HAPPENS, at ANY moment, HAPPENED BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED, PRIOR, to THAT moment.

Nobody does.

AGAIN, it does NOT matter ONE IOTA here.

So you don't have ground to make that claim.

BUT I HAVE the IRREFUTABLE ground, and PROOF, to MAKE THAT CLAIM.

BUT, BECAUSE of what 'you' ARE DOING here, right now, that is; MAKING AN/OTHER Assumption, based SOLELY UPON 'your' Past Experiences, and NOT SEEKING OUT ANY CLARIFICATION, which is what just about ALL of 'you', posters, do here CONTINUALLY, 'you' will just CONTINUE TO KEEP 'trying to' FIGHT and ARGUE for THE BELIEF, which 'you' are currently STEADFASTLY HOLDING ONTO AS BEING TRUE.

And even if, presuming it were true, it wouldn't mean that something 'New' or unknowable could not occur now.

WHO EVER even THOUGHT that something 'New' or 'unknowable' could NOT occur?

'you', people, REALLY DO COME UP WITH the MOST Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS sayings, thoughts, claims, and views, especially WHEN 'trying to' FIGHT FOR AN ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that IS ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, OR Incorrect.

[Wizard22]

It's not absurd. It's common sense.

[Flannel Jesus]

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 combustion in a car is just physical interaction of chemicals, why does a long track take a long time, sometimes a very long time, to finish?

That question doesn't make sense, for cars or for brains. Why should physical processes have immediate results? I don't see the intuition you have that generated that question. None of my intuitions about physical processes generate that question at all. Change happens over time. Some changes take more time. That's not unique to brains and thinking, that's just how physical change works.

[Age]

It's not absurd. It's common sense.

LOL
LOL
LOL

WHO ARE 'you' REPLYING or RESPONDING TO here "wizard22?

WHAT is, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT 'absurd'? And,

WHAT is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'common sense'?

OBVIOUSLY 'it' IS NOT what 'you' SAID and WROTE above here.

[Wizard22]

LOL
LOL
LOL

WHO ARE 'you' REPLYING or RESPONDING TO here "wizard22?

WHAT is, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT 'absurd'? And,

WHAT is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'common sense'?

OBVIOUSLY 'it' IS NOT what 'you' SAID and WROTE above here.

If you suppress your Autism, then the answer will become clear.

[Age]

LOL
LOL
LOL

WHO ARE 'you' REPLYING or RESPONDING TO here "wizard22?

WHAT is, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT 'absurd'? And,

WHAT is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'common sense'?

OBVIOUSLY 'it' IS NOT what 'you' SAID and WROTE above here.

If you suppress your Autism, then the answer will become clear.

If 'you' REALIZED, and ACCEPTED, 'your' form of 'autism', then 'you', ALSO, could SEE, VERY CLEARLY, WHERE and WHY what you SAID and CLAIMED above IS NOT 'common sense' AT ALL.

[Immanuel Can]

...you' WILL NOT ANSWER these QUESTIONS.

I'll say again, "Age," I'm not interested in your blather. It's not sensible, interesting or even organized. You're the only person here who thinks he "wins" by the sheer amount of irrelevant nonsense and numbers of posts he can generate.

We're "playing the game" of philosophy. You came to the "field" with no equipment, and manifestly, with no skills: and you contribute not a single useful play to the game. You aren't even aware how bad you are at playing. You're like a bewildered rodent that's wandered onto the football pitch.

Sorry: we just can't be bothered with that.

[Immanuel Can]

So the burden's on the Determinist to show why we're all crazy,

The best I've seen Determinists come up with, is to accuse Free-Will-ists, that our decision-making faculties are illusions, or produce illusions.

Yes.

And that way, they're just assuming the conclusion they want, not proving anything at all. And then they retreat into, "Well, you can't prove me wrong," which is the completely wrong burden of proof. But they do that because their crazy belief is difficult to eliminate, so it's more defensible in a defensive position than if they have to prove something.

The "Soft Determinists" concede that freedom is free from coercion. But that's a rabbit-hole. Freedom, I believe, is contingent on much more than mere coercion. How about bodily movement? Having one left, or one arm, severely limits freedom. But that doesn't then conclude that the disabled person, has no Free-Will. It is only a detriment, a part negative, as-is any hypothetical 'coercion'. So at what level, to the Determinists, is the distinction between free or not-free made?

Good point.

(I pose this to the Determinists, not you IC)

I'll be interested in their answer. But expect them to say, "Well, you can't prove free will..." because that's all they've got -- the defensive posture.