Free will is wholly deterministic

[Skepdick]

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.

Nonsense. Of course you can prove you have free will.

Simply choose that which you hold as incontrovertibly true. The thing that you simply refuse to deny. And then deny it.

In your particular case: reject God. I bet you can't/won't.

[LuckyR]

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.

Let's clarify what we're saying (and more importantly not saying). Even the most rabid Free Will believer agrees that human brains make use of physical events to accomplish at least some of their functions. The aspect of the Determinism paradigm that I disagree with is the proposition that antecedent state A always leads to resultant state B, never C.

What I was trying to highlight with the comment you quoted, is how much leeway are Determinists seeking to explain what lay persons call "thinking", temporally? If what we all experience as "thinking", especially over a long time (much longer than what is required for electric charges to travel or neurotransmitters to have an effect) then when is resultant state B?

[Skepdick]

The aspect of the Determinism paradigm that I disagree with is the proposition that antecedent state A always leads to resultant state B, never C.

So, you disagree that determinism is deterministic?

You don't think that f(A) is always B.
You think that f(A) is sometimes B, sometimes C.

You think that determinism is non-deterministic. That's a very peculiar philosophical position indeed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_algorithm

In computer science, a deterministic algorithm is an algorithm that, given a particular input, will always produce the same output, with the underlying machine always passing through the same sequence of states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterm ... _algorithm

In computer programming, a nondeterministic algorithm is an algorithm that, even for the same input, can exhibit different behaviors on different runs, as opposed to a deterministic algorithm.

[LuckyR]

The aspect of the Determinism paradigm that I disagree with is the proposition that antecedent state A always leads to resultant state B, never C.

So, you disagree that determinism is deterministic?

You don't think that f(A) is always B.
You think that f(A) is sometimes B, sometimes C.

You think that determinism is non-deterministic. That's a very peculiar philosophical position indeed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_algorithm

In computer science, a deterministic algorithm is an algorithm that, given a particular input, will always produce the same output, with the underlying machine always passing through the same sequence of states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterm ... _algorithm

In computer programming, a nondeterministic algorithm is an algorithm that, even for the same input, can exhibit different behaviors on different runs, as opposed to a deterministic algorithm.

I apologize for being difficult for you to understand. I disagree with the mentioned aspect of Determinism, thus I don't believe Determinism is correct (as far as animal decision making is concerned).

[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.

Let's clarify what we're saying (and more importantly not saying). Even the most rabid Free Will believer agrees that human brains make use of physical events to accomplish at least some of their functions. The aspect of the Determinism paradigm that I disagree with is the proposition that antecedent state A always leads to resultant state B, never C.

What I was trying to highlight with the comment you quoted, is how much leeway are Determinists seeking to explain what lay persons call "thinking", temporally? If what we all experience as "thinking", especially over a long time (much longer than what is required for electric charges to travel or neurotransmitters to have an effect) then when is resultant state B?

I can't say I understand what you're talking about here. Your initial post I quoted implied that you think thoughts should happen immediately if physical determinism is true. All my response is about is saying that that's clearly and intuitively not the consequence of determinism anyway. Nothing in determinism says that change happens immediately. It seems like a non sequitur to me.

[Edit] are you saying that thoughts shouldn't take a long time because your brain should go from state A to state B at the fastest rate it could, given the speed of light and the time it takes for neurons to communicate with each other? Is that the argument here?

[phyllo]

The aspect of the Determinism paradigm that I disagree with is the proposition that antecedent state A always leads to resultant state B, never C.

Okay, you're in state A and you decide to go to state B.

Let's say we could go back to state A.

So you're deciding once again in exactly the same state A.

The first time you thought that state B is better than state C. So you picked B.

Why would pick C when you think B is better?

There's nothing preventing you from picking C. But in state A you prefer B over C.

It seems you would always pick B no matter how often you go back to state A.

How can it work otherwise?

[Age]

...you' WILL NOT ANSWER these QUESTIONS.

I'll say again, "Age," I'm not interested in your blather.

WE DO NOT CARE.

I JUST SAID and CLAIMED what 'you' WILL NOT DO "immanuel can". Now, WE WILL SEE I AM Right, ONCE AGAIN, or NOT.

And, 'you' call what I AM SAYING, 'BLATHER', BECAUSE what I AM SAYING here IS COUNTERING and REFUTING 'your' ABSOLUTE NONSENSE and IRRATIONAL BELIEFS here, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, the one that 'God is a "he"'.

The ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY of ANY one to BELIEVE such a 'thing' SPEAKS ABSOLUTE VOLUMES OF PURE LUNACY.

It's not sensible, interesting or even organized.

ONCE AGAIN, the CLAIM, 'it is ...', WITHOUT EVER ANY ACTUAL 'thing' POINTED TO NOR HIGHLIGHTED.

'These people' WERE SO, SO VERY AFRAID, and SCARED.

You're the only person here who thinks he "wins" by the sheer amount of irrelevant nonsense and numbers of posts he can generate.

LOL
LOL
LOL

What we have here IS ANOTHER PURE NONSENSICAL, False, Wrong, AND Incorrect ASSUMPTION.

We're "playing the game" of philosophy.

OF WHICH 'you', "immanuel can", have NEVER CONSIDERED what the 'philosophy' word ACTUALLY MEANS and ACTUALLY REFERS TO, EXACTLY.

AND, to PROVE 'this' IRREFUTABLY True, ALSO and AS WELL, I WILL ASK 'you', "immanuel can", 'What does the 'philosophy' word MEAN and/or REFER TO, TO 'you', EXACTLY?

And what WE WILL GET, ONCE MORE, is NO ACTUAL ANSWER.

You came to the "field" with no equipment, and manifestly, with no skills: and you contribute not a single useful play to the game.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' CAME TO 'this FORUM' CLAIMING that 'God IS A "he"?'

I have ASKED 'you' TO PROVE 'this' True, AND/OR to even just EXPLAIN HOW 'this' BELIEF OF 'yours' could even be A POSSIBILITY, let alone AN ACTUALITY. And, OF COURSE, besides NOT even being ABLE TO EXPLAIN 'you' ALSO can NOT PROVE 'your' CLAIM and BELIEF True.

Therefore, AND CLEARLY, 'you' HAVE ARRIVED WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL, in which to back up and support 'your' BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.

You aren't even aware how bad you are at playing.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If 'you' ONLY KNEW "immanuel can". IF 'you' ONLY KNEW.

ONCE AGAIN, what 'we' HAVE here IS;

1. FURTHER ATTEMPTS AT DEFLECTION, and thus DECEIVING and DECEPTION by 'this one', in COMPLETE CONSISTENCY WITH 'the DEVIL', itself.

2. FURTHER ATTEMPTS AT RIDICULE and HUMILIATION OF "the other", and thus ATTEMPTING to appear 'SUPERIOR' to "others". AGAIN, in COMPLETE CONSISTENCY WITH 'the DEVIL'S' WORK.

3. This one HAS IRREFUTABLY PROVED True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct MY CLAIMS above, ONCE AGAIN.

As I VERY CLEARLY SPELLED OUT and WROTE above;

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

You're like a bewildered rodent that's wandered onto the football pitch.

AND 'you', "immnuel can", LAUGHABLY and INSANELY CLAIM that 'God IS A "he", and then RUN AWAY and HIDE every time I SHOW the RIDICULOUS STUPIDITY OF such A CLAIM.

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

The REAL REASON WHY 'you' WILL NOT BOTHER IS BECAUSE even if 'you' 'tried to' ANSWER MY QUESTIONS 'you' WOULD STUMBLE and FALL, REVEALING "the ACTUAL Truth". WHICH OBVIOUSLY CONTRADICTS 'your' CLAIMS and BELIEFS here.

[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.

Yes.

And that way, they're just assuming the conclusion they want, not proving anything at all.

LOL 'you' SAY 'this' as though 'you' so-called "free willys" have PROVEN some 'thing' here.

'These people', BACK THEN, REALLY could NOT SEE NOR even RECOGNIZE that 'they' WERE BOTH AS STUPID and AS CLOSED AS the "other one" WAS.

'These people', BACK THEN, WERE SO CLOSED and SO STUPID that 'they' did NOT EVEN CONSIDER to JUST WONDER, MAYBE there COULD BE Truths AND Falsehoods IN BOTH "sides"?

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.

LOL IF 'free will' IS SO TRUE, then WHY do 'you' "free willys" PROVE 'it' TRUE?

The ANSWER IS BECAUSE 'you' can NOT, and 'this' IS BECAUSE 'it' IS NOT EVEN TRUE.

An 'adult human being' with A BELIEF can be about the MOST CLOSED and STUPIDEST 'thing' in the WHOLE Universe.

AS EXAMPLED, and PROVED ABSOLUTELY True here, BY 'these adult human beings'.

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.

LOL 'you' BOTH SAY, 'you' can NOT prove "your side". BUT, LAUGHINGLY, "each" STILL BELIEVING that "their side" IS the true, right, and correct "one side".

I WILL SAY 'this' AGAIN, UNTIL 'you', people, WORK OUT and COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON what 'free will' AND 'determinism' words MEAN and/or REFER TO, EXACTLY, then 'you', people, WILL KEEP CARRYING ON WITH the ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY that 'you' ARE SHOWING here and HAVE BEEN DOING FOR MILLENNIA 'now'.

[Iwannaplato]

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!

Your talking about a freedom that many determinists do not deny. The free will most determinist deny is the absence of prior states leading to the next states. It was always going to be the case that Joe did X at midnight on the 31st of December, 2023.

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

You keep raising this irrelevant criterion. If someone here in this forum is arguing this, please point it out. Otherwise it's not relevent, regardless of what you've experienced, supposedly, in forums you were banned on.

[Wizard22]

Your talking about a freedom that many determinists do not deny. The free will most determinist deny is the absence of prior states leading to the next states. It was always going to be the case that Joe did X at midnight on the 31st of December, 2023.

...yes, according to the Determinists.

So what is Determinism built upon, except the predictive power, and ability to predict the future, by the Determinists???

What if they're wrong, and not only wrong, but often and brutally wrong? Their predictions can be flagrantly false?

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

You keep raising this irrelevant criterion. If someone here in this forum is arguing this, please point it out. Otherwise it's not relevent, regardless of what you've experienced, supposedly, in forums you were banned on.

I think my fellow Free-Will-ists received my point, and that's good enough for me.

[Iwannaplato]

...yes, according to the Determinists.

Right, according to determinists. That's what I was doing, explaining what most determinists think, which was not what you were saying they thought.

So what is Determinism built upon, except the predictive power, and ability to predict the future, by the Determinists???

Some will point to prediction, others use deduction, some both.

What if they're wrong, and not only wrong, but often and brutally wrong? Their predictions can be flagrantly false?

They could be wrong, in general. They could be wrong in the specific. But pretty much every determinist knows that given the complexity of many phenomena, even if determinism is the case, this does not entail that we can predict everything.

What if people who beliefe in FREE WILL make false predictions?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? [ ] What if they are brutally wrong? [ ]

I think my fellow Free-Will-ists received my point, and that's good enough for me.

What a non-response.

And no response to what determinists are saying. So, you run around with a Strawman determinist. Act as if that is what determinists believe, period. When asked why you talk about the strawman and are asked to produce an example, you can't because of some hallucinated punishments if people knew who you were in other forums. Which means you can produce one here. When it's pointed out what determinists in general believe, you say 'according to determinists', which was precisely the point. But after acknowledging that instead of what you said they believe they believe what I said, you opt not to respond to/critique their actual position.

And the justification for this is that people on your team will understand.

I don't know what you think you're doing but it's not reasoning.

[LuckyR]

The aspect of the Determinism paradigm that I disagree with is the proposition that antecedent state A always leads to resultant state B, never C.

Okay, you're in state A and you decide to go to state B.

Let's say we could go back to state A.

So you're deciding once again in exactly the same state A.

The first time you thought that state B is better than state C. So you picked B.

Why would pick C when you think B is better?

There's nothing preventing you from picking C. But in state A you prefer B over C.

It seems you would always pick B no matter how often you go back to state A.

How can it work otherwise?

Oh, but in Determinism you don't "decide" anything. If you could "decide", then you could choose B or C. But according to Determinism, you're going to end up at B (never C), and the feeling that you had a "choice" in the matter is an illusion.

[Wizard22]

...yes, according to the Determinists.

Right, according to determinists. That's what I was doing, explaining what most determinists think, which was not what you were saying they thought.

So what is Determinism built upon, except the predictive power, and ability to predict the future, by the Determinists???

Some will point to prediction, others use deduction, some both.

What if they're wrong, and not only wrong, but often and brutally wrong? Their predictions can be flagrantly false?

They could be wrong, in general. They could be wrong in the specific. But pretty much every determinist knows that given the complexity of many phenomena, even if determinism is the case, this does not entail that we can predict everything.

What if people who beliefe in FREE WILL make false predictions?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? [ ] What if they are brutally wrong? [ ]

Oh what an equivocation! Don't you understand the argument thus far? The evidence and proof of Free-Will, to Free-Will-ists, are our actions, our decisions in effect. It doesn't matter if our predictive powers are wrong or false. In fact, that leads to more credibility. Free-Will implies there can be a 'wrong', a falsity, an error, poor decisions.

So you just admitted the difference.

I think my fellow Free-Will-ists received my point, and that's good enough for me.

What a non-response.

And no response to what determinists are saying. So, you run around with a Strawman determinist. Act as if that is what determinists believe, period. When asked why you talk about the strawman and are asked to produce an example, you can't because of some hallucinated punishments if people knew who you were in other forums. Which means you can produce one here. When it's pointed out what determinists in general believe, you say 'according to determinists', which was precisely the point. But after acknowledging that instead of what you said they believe they believe what I said, you opt not to respond to/critique their actual position.

And the justification for this is that people on your team will understand.

I don't know what you think you're doing but it's not reasoning.

You just admitted that Determinists hinge their positions and beliefs on their predictive capabilities. That's on YOU, not me! I already examined their psychological motivations, and stand by what I've said in this thread. Where's the burden-of-proof? Where's the evidence? Where's the range of falsification? You represented the Determinists, not the Free-Will-ists, so which one are you really???

Don't you now, at least, see the differences between the two?

[Walker]

Oh what an equivocation! Don't you understand the argument thus far? The evidence and proof of Free-Will, to Free-Will-ists, are our actions, our decisions in effect. It doesn't matter if our predictive powers are wrong or false. In fact, that leads to more credibility. Free-Will implies there can be a 'wrong', a falsity, an error, poor decisions.

Choice cannot be objectively tested because choice explains nothing more than the period to a sentence that explains nothing to the curious mind. For example ... “Yeah, he did it. He chose to. Idiot. Period.”

You know what they say about what cannot be tested. They say it’s not scientific.

Need can be tested and understood through renunciation.

The test is simple.

Sit down, don’t move at all until you must, then when you do move you will understand need. The choice was to not move, but you moved out of need. Under the conditions of the test, the movement cannot be called choice because the choice, the intent, was to not move.

You may also understand the nature of fidgeting.

If fortunate, you will learn that as a principle, need overrides intent, that is, choice.

Intent is what folks are calling choice.

The actual action is what folks wish for their choice to have been.

If ego does not get in the way, then what is learned extends to mindfulness, and one sees that the doing for oneself and others invariably extends beyond the period, and into need. Even altruisic actions arise from need triggered by compassion.


This simple reality test may or may not fit into the various abstractions that folks call Determinism.

[Wizard22]

Intent is not choice.

Decision and executing your intent, acting, making it real, is the choice.